Absence of Proper Identification Parade raises Doubt on the Admissibility of the Deposition by the Court: Supreme Court
Case title – Jafar Vs State of Kerala
Case no. – Criminal Appeal No. 1607 OF 2009
Decision on – March 15, 2024
Quoram – Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Facts of the case
In this case, the case of the prosecution was that in 2004, the accused persons came with a vehicle to the building where retail shops of Kerala State Beverages Corporation were situated with an intention to commit dacoity. In consonance of the intent, they were armed with deadly weapons like iron lever and wooden bar. The appellant kicked on the naval portion of the security guard at the gate and beat him with an iron lever on the right leg which resulted in fracture. The appellant was convicted under Section 397 read with Section 395 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 10,000.
Other accused persons beat him with the wooden bar on various parts of his body and then tied his legs and hands with bath towels and made him lie on the cot. Thereafter, they fastened his body on the cot with a piece of bed sheet and the remaining piece was pushed into his mouth. They mishandled him and then committed robbery of mobile phone, wrist watch, and torch. They also destroyed the light in the building and lock of the shutters of the retail shop. Hence, a case was registered against the accused.
The Judicial Magistrate First Class took cognizance of the matter only against accused No. 2, 3, and 5 as other accused were absconded. The court found accused Nos. 2(Appellant) and 3 guilty and as such convicted them for the said offences.
Submission of the Parties
The Counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction is based on no evidence and contended that the appeal deserves to be allowed.
The Counsel for the State, on the contrary, submitted that both the Courts had concurrently, upon appreciation of the evidence, found the appellant to be guilty and hence, no interference would be warranted.
Court’s Analysis and Judgement
The Court observed that the conviction of the accused was primarily based on the deposition of PW-1, who was a security guard. The Court noted that PW-1 identified the accused persons since the police had shown him only those two people. Thereby, concluded that the identification of the appellant by PW 1 is quite doubtful as there no identification parade conducted.
The Court pointed out that in the absence of proper identification parade being conducted, the identification for the first time in the Court cannot be said to be free from doubt.
The Court thus held that the judgment of the Kerala High Court dismissing the appeal and the Trial Court convicting the appellant are not sustainable in law.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned judgment, and acquitted the appellant.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K