Home case analysis Rajesh @ Sarkari & Anr. vs. the state of Haryana (2020) :...

Rajesh @ Sarkari & Anr. vs. the state of Haryana (2020) : case analysis

March 13, 2024

230

This article is written by Janani Parvathy J, and it provides a detailed legal analysis of the case, ‘Rajesh @ Sarkari & Anr v. State of Haryana’. This article elaborates on the facts, issues, and arguments by both parties and analyses the entire judgement.

It has been published by Rachit Garg.

Table of Contents

Introduction

Rajesh @ Sarkari & Anr. v. State of Haryana (2020) is a judgement of utmost importance. This case not only becomes a precedent for its evidential analysis but also for its factual analysis. It touches upon several aspects of the Indian Penal Code and the Indian Evidence Act. It established the evidentiary value of the Test Identification Procedure and laid down principles regarding the same. The Test Identification Parade is done to test the memory of the witnesses and check whether the witnesses can identify the accused without any external aid. It shall serve as a precedent to guide judicial decisions. Along with its legal importance, since the case revolves around the conviction of a gangster, it also deeply affects society.

Details of Rajesh @ Sarkari & Anr. vs. the state of Haryana (2020)

Case name – Rajesh @ Sarkari & Anr. v. State of Haryana
Criminal Appeal No. – 1648 of 2019
Equivalent Citations – AIR 2020 SC 5561, 2021 (1) ALD (Crl.) 1024 (SC), 2021 (1) ALT (Crl.) 61 (A.P.), 2021 CriLJ 206, 2020/INSC/628, 2021 (1) J.L.J.R. 108, 2020 (6) JKJ 99 [SC], 2021-2-LW(Crl) 141, 2020 (4) MLJ (Crl) 610, 2021 (1) MWN (CR.) 130, 2021 (1) PLJR 190, 2020 (4) RCR (Criminal) 818, (2021) 1 SCC 118, [2020] 14 SCR 1, 2020 (3) UC 1917.
Acts involved – Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Arms Act, 1959
Important provisions – Sections 302, 34 of the IPC, Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Court – Supreme Court of India
Bench-Justice Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Indu Malhotra, and Justice Indira Banerjee
Petitioners – Rajesh @ Sarkari & Anr.
Respondents – State of Haryana
Judgment Date – November 03, 2020

Facts of Rajesh @ Sarkari & Anr. vs. the state of Haryana (2020)

Statements made in the FIR

Sandeep Hooda, the son of Azad Singh Hooda, was studying law at Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak. On December 26, 2006, he went to the law department of his university to prepare for his law exams. On the same day, his father, i.e., Azad Singh and brother, i.e., Sunil Singh, went to see him when they could not reach him by phone. After arriving at the university at 2:30 pm, they saw six men standing under the tin sheds, and some of them started firing shots at Sandeep. The father and son further noticed the three accused leave on a silver-coloured Pulsar motorcycle towards the Delhi road upon seeing them reach the spot. Sandeep Hooda subsequently collapsed on the ground and started bleeding from his right foot, abdomen, arm, left temple and thigh. The eyewitnesses, namely, Azad Singh and Sunil Singh, also stated before the police that, though they had not noticed the number plate of the vehicle used by the assailants, they would still be able to identify the accused if brought before them. En route to the Pandit Bhagwat Dayal Sharma Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (PGIMS) Rohtak hospital, Sandeep succumbed to injuries. Subsequently, the First Investigation Report (FIR) was filed, and the police began an investigation. The complainant alleged that his son, Sandeep Hooda, had bad relations with some people and suspected that they were the ones who could have killed him. Investigations led to the arrest of three accused, Rajesh alias Sarkari, Ajay Hooda, and Pehlad (hereinafter addressed as accused 1, 2, and 3 respectively). The accused were charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).

Initiation of the trial proceedings

The Section 302 case was then brought for trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sessions Court, as the court of sessions possessed the local jurisdiction. The trial against the first two accused persons, namely, Rajesh and Ajay, was initiated after the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 25th September 2005. Subsequently, on 31st March 2008, the Chief Judicial Magistrate passed another order for the trial of accused 3, namely, Pehlad. Both of these orders were then consolidated, and final charges were framed on 8th May 2008. The trial then began, and the prosecution relied on its 24 witnesses and the Forensic Scientific Laboratory report (FSL report), whereas the defence produced 5 witnesses. The materials recovered from the crime scene included seven empty cartridges, one lead, blood-stained soil, and a liquor bottle. Further, one pistol from Rajesh’s house and another from Ajay’s house were recovered, respectively.

Proceedings in the Sessions Court

Arguments from the Prosecution

The prosecution witnesses included the father (PW4), the brother (PW5) of the deceased, and the police officers who investigated the crime. The FSL reports revealed that a 7.62 mm Mauser pistol was used to fire shots at the victim. It also discovered two reformed and mutilated bullets found in the body of the accused, possibly from a country-made gun, and seven fired bullets from the crime scene. The postmortem report revealed thirteen injuries on the victim’s body. Additionally, the prosecution also highlighted the fact that the accused refused to undergo the test identification parade.

The prosecution put forward the following:

The testimony and identification of the accused by the principal eyewitnesses, PW4 and PW5.
The Pulsar motorcycle, which was used by the accused to escape from the crime scene, has been obtained from the residence of Rajesh alias Sarkari.
In an investigation by PW21, SI Ram Singh, pistols, and the alleged murder weapons were discovered in the rented residences of both accused 1 and 2 respectively.

Arguments by the Defence

The defence relied on five witnesses to prove the accused not guilty. The five witnesses presented by the defence include the owner of Ajay Hooda’s rented house, i.e., Zile Singh, a person named as a co-accused with the victim in another case, i.e, Rajesh Jogpal, the newspaper editor of Hari Bhoomi newspaper, i.e., Shamsher Singh; Parveen and Sikander, friends of the victim who were also present at the crime scene. All three accused also denied all the allegations raised against them and argued that the victim was also an offender.

The witnesses stated the following before the court:

According to the statements of Zile Singh, who is the house owner, he neither lent the house to accused 2 nor did the police ever come to search the house to seize the alleged murder weapon.
The statement given by Rajesh Jogpal, DW2, says that he and Sandeep together underwent trial for a case, that the trial was completed, and that Sandeep’s father stood as a surety for him in that case.
The newspaper editor stated that only three publications had the name of the accused, and so no violation of their privacy has happened.
DW-4, Parveen, in his statements, said that he, Sikandar and Sandeep were standing near the cycle stands and consuming alcohol. Following this, 5-6 people came there and fired multiple shots at Sandeep. After this, he along with Sikandar, took the victim to the hospital and later informed PW4 and PW5 about the same.
Sikandar also stated on similar lines that he and Parveen took the victim in the Santro car to the hospital and later informed the complainants.

Point of Contention

One major factual point of contention was that the prosecution witnesses 4 and 5 (father and son) stated that they took the victim to the hospital, while the defence witnesses 4 and 5 (friends) claimed that they were the ones to take Sandeep to the hospital, and PW4 and PW5 reached the hospital only after being informed by DW4 and DW5.

Judgement by Sessions Court and High Court

The Sessions Judge, after analysing the arguments and evidence, ruled in favour of the prosecution, holding the accused persons guilty of murder and awarding them imprisonment for life. In January 2019, the High Court also, on the same lines, upheld the conviction of the accused for murder. The accused persons then appealed to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Issues raised

Whether the refusal of the accused persons, the appellants in this case, to undergo a Test Identification Parade possess any significance?
Whether PW4 and PW5 present at the crime scene during the commission of the murder on 26th December 2006 and whether they witness the complete scene?

Arguments of the parties in Rajesh @ Sarkari & Anr. vs. the state of Haryana (2020)

The appellants and respondents put forward several factual and legal arguments. They are:

Appellants

The appellants were represented by senior counsel, Mr. Rakesh Khanna. He placed two main contentions before the court.

Absence of the principal eyewitnesses at the scene

The counsel on behalf of the appellant argued that PW4 and PW5, the father and son of the victim, were neither present at the crime scene nor did they escort the victim to the hospital. Thus, their testimonies are unreliable and false.
The FIR reports mention that Parveen rushed Sandeep in Sadeep’s car to the hospital, but it contradicts the statements made by PW4 and PW5 that they had accompanied the victim to the hospital.
Statements by DW4, Parveen, and DW5, Sikandar, provide support to the statements made in the FIR. Statements of DW4 and DW5 further mentioned that neither PW4 nor PW5 were present at the crime scene and that other relatives of the deceased reached the hospital 10-15 minutes after their arrival.
Further, the information sent by the casualty medical officer of PGIMS, Rohtak, shows that Parveen, son of Zile Singh, brought the victim to the hospital. But unfortunately, the record, instead of mentioning Parveen, son of Zile Singh, mistakenly recorded Sandeep Lehri, son of Zile Singh.
The counsel also relied on the case of State of Rajasthan v. Daud Khan (2015) to establish that blackening of the wound could mean proximity of the victim to the murder weapon. In the present case, the postmortem report found a blackened wound on the body of the deceased victim. Thus, it could be concluded that the murderer, with the murder weapon, was standing very close to the deceased. This would lead to the conclusion that PW4 and PW5, who stood outside the gate and were far away from the deceased and the murder weapon, would not have observed the crime properly.

Forensic Scientific Laboratory reports

Three Forensic Scientific Laboratory (FSL) reports were provided by the FSL laboratory, the first two relating to the first FIR and the last one relating to the second FIR. The first report analysed three parcels, which included the clothes of the deceased, the fired pistol, and the fired bullet. The second report included fired pistols and misfired and fired bullets in four different parcels, and the third report contained five parcels. The third report contained, blood-stained earth, 7.62 mm Mauser fired pistol bullets, blood-stained clothes and mutilated fired bullets recovered from the body of the deceased. The counsel for the prosecution highlighted several discrepancies in the FSL reports to strengthen its case.
The second FSL report had 4 parcels. The first parcel had a pistol with 7.65mm cartridges and a live 7.65 mm cartridge case, which was recovered from accused 1 and marked W/1. The second parcel had one 7.62mm cartridge, which was recovered from the house of Accused 1. The laboratory test results stated that both pistols were test-fired and found to be in working condition.
Pistol W/2, the pistol recovered from Accused 2, and the test-fired bullet submitted with the second parcel were neither received nor acknowledged, along with the description of articles received in the third FSL examination.
The contradictions in the second and third FSL reports regarding the cartridges were also highlighted by the counsel. The second FSL indicates usage of 7.62/0.30 mm cartridge chambers, whereas the third FSL mentions a 7.62 mm cartridge. The recovery memo mentions recovering 7 empties and 1 cartridge bearing the description ‘S’, whereas, in the second FSL report, a 7.62mm/0.30 mm cartridge is mentioned.
There is also no evidence that assistant director R.K. Koshal, who performed the third FSL report, was ever informed about the relationship between the remaining reports.
Assistant director R.K. Koshal, who prepared the third FSL report, concluded that shots were fired from a specific bullet without complete information being provided to him. The investigating officer also admitted that the inscription on the empty shells was different from that mentioned in the FSL reports.
Another important point put forth by the counsel was that though the third FSL report concluded that cartridge cases C/1 to C/7 and bullets, BC/1 to BC/3 had been fired from a country-made gun, the analyst was never provided with the pistol W/2, the gun recovered from accused 2.
An examination of the ballistics examiner could have helped resolve some discrepancies, but a non-performance of the same adds doubt to the credibility of the forensic report analysis. The counsel further stressed the non-examination of the ballistics examiner to prove the existence of discrepancies.
The counsel of the appellant, after accentuating the above differences, and emphasising the suspicion of non-examination of the ballistics expert-created, called for a ruling in favour of the appellant.

Respondent

The counsel for the state, led by Mr. Deepak Thukral, opposed all submissions made by the appellants and put forth their arguments.

Several of the submissions made by the respondents, represented by the State, focused on proving the existence of PW4 and PW5 at the crime scene and their active role in taking the victim to the hospital.
The counsel submitted that PW4 and PW5 were indeed principal eyewitnesses who were present at the crime scene. The counsel to substantiate their point stated that PW5 had given the tracksuit of the deceased to the police, thus making it inferable that they were present at the scene.
Since PW4 and PW5 reached the crime spot on a motorcycle, they could not have lifted the deceased’s body using the same and had to carry the victim in Praveen’s (DW1) car to the hospital.
Additionally, the extensive cross-examination of both witnesses also lends credibility to the testimonies they have given. Further, the statements of PW4 and PW5 on the incident are supplemented by the medical evidence provided. Statements from PW4 and PW5 accurately mention a pistol and bullets being fired.
The third report wrongly mentions that W/2, i.e., the pistol analysed in the second parcel, was obtained from Accused 1. Despite this or any other omission, the accused should be held liable under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 34, as murder weapons were retrieved from their houses, and witness statements also establish their guilt.
The refusal of the accused to undergo a test identification parade indicates their guilt. Privacy concerns to justify their refusal could be refuted by the fact that only one of the newspapers published the accused’s photographs.
The ballistics examiner could not be examined because of a procedural delay. The FSL report was submitted by the respondent only after the completion of the hearing of statements by the appellants.
The defence relied on Mohan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1999). The SC, in this case, observed that the blackening of injury had several factors apart from just the proximity of the victim to the weapon.
The counsel, on behalf of the defence, then urged the court to consider the facts and evidence put forward by them and provide a suitable judgment.

Laws and precedents discussed in Rajesh @ Sarkari & Anr. vs. the state of Haryana (2020)

Legal provisions

Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This provision explains significant facts and the method of presenting them. It describes what relevant facts are, i.e., facts that support another fact or inference, facts that rebut, facts that help establish the identity of something or someone, or facts that depict a relationship between two people. The court, in this case, interpreted Section 9 to include facts that establish the identity of the accused as relevant.
Section 302 of IPC: This provision contains the punishment for the offence of murder. Murder refers to the act of killing another with the intention to kill or intending to cause such bodily harm as will likely result in death. Murder can result in imprisonment for life or the death penalty, along with a fine. The accused in the present case were convicted under Section 302 for murder and punished with life imprisonment. The central question posed before the SC was to analyse the guilt of the accused under Section 302.
Section 34 of IPC: Section 34 deals with criminal acts done by multiple people with a common intention. This provision mandates the presence of two or more people, a common intention, and a criminal act performed in furtherance of the common intention. The accused, Rajesh, Ajay Hooda, and Pehlad, were charged under Section 34 IPC for the commission of murder, jointly and with a similar intention.
Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959: It prohibits and punishes the sale, manufacture, dealing, export, possession, and usage of arms or ammunition without a licence, in contravention of Section 7, and for an illegal purpose. Punishment for the above offences can range from imprisonment for 7 years up to life imprisonment. Conversion of an imitation firearm into an actual firearm, smuggling of arms into and from the country, and illegal sale by unregistered sellers of firearms are also punished by this Act.
Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This provision deals with statements made by witnesses to the police in the course of the investigation. It not only states that the witness statements need not be signed but also lays down the evidentiary value of such statements. Statements made under this section can be used only for contradiction by the opposing counsel, under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act for dying declaration, and under Section 27 for discovery statement. The court in this case held that identification parades shall be governed by Section 162.

Case laws

Mohinder Singh v. The State (1950) and Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab (2020): In Mohinder Singh, the prosecution could distinguish between rifle and gun to find the murder weapon only based on duly qualified expert evidence. The evidence of an expert proved most helpful in ascertaining the murder weapon and pattern. In a later case, Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab, a gun was stated as a murder weapon devoid of expert evidence. The court in Gurucharan held that the rule in Mohinder Singh that the prosecution needed expert evidence to establish the murder is flexible, and the evidence of an expert would become necessary when direct evidence is not available. These cases have been discussed by the SC to emphasise the circumstances for wanting expert advice, i.e., the ballistics expert in the present case.

Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab(1995): This case highlights how disastrous the omission of some items to be sent for forensic analysis could be. The empty and sealed pistol, forgotten to be sent for ballistics, became a turning point in this case. This case points out that negligence by the police in sending all evidentiary samples for analysis is undesirable. In the present case, the court cited another, State of Punjab v. Jugraj Singh (2002), to point out that the prosecution’s case cannot be disbelieved only because no expert witness was presented by them.
The court also analysed Vineet Kumar Chauhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2007), where it was held that the prosecution need not lead the ballistics examiner when presenting him as a witness. Another important case analysed by the court was Govindaraju @ Govinda v. State by Sriramapuram P.S. & Anr. (2012) The Supreme Court in Govindaraju v. State drew an adverse conclusion when none of the FSL personnel were examined and all their other witnesses had gone hostile.

Judgment in Rajesh @ Sarkari & Anr. vs. the state of Haryana (2020)

Through its judgment, the court sought to answer three main questions: the presence of PW4 and PW5 at the crime scene, the third FSL report, and the evidentiary value of the refusal of the accused to undergo TIP.

Presence of PW4 and PW5

The Supreme Court observed the following aspects with regard to the presence of PW4 and PW5 as eyewitnesses at the crime scene.

PW4 is the father of the deceased, and PW5 is the son. Based on the FIR report, it can be said that PW4 and PW5 visited the police station to find the whereabouts of Sandeep, the deceased victim, and after they could not trace him through the phone, they left on a bike to find him. Although PW4 and PW5 credit themselves for taking the deceased to the hospital, the FIR report states that Parveen (DW4) and another boy brought the victim to the hospital.
In the chief and cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, the father and son agreed on a few aspects, namely, that they were present at the crime scene, witnessed the entire incident, and could identify the accused if brought before them, but contradicted themselves on other aspects. PW4, in his examination, mentions the help of a third person in the Santro while removing the deceased, whereas PW5 does not.
The court also found several obstacles that could disprove the version of the only eyewitnesses to the prosecution. The ruqqa, i.e., written intimation, mentioned only ‘Sandeep Lehri’, son of Zile Singh Hooda, as the one who brought the victim to the hospital. The court also found the reasoning of the court below that PW4 and PW5 were shocked enough to be unable to sign the ruqqa to be improbable.
The Supreme Court also rejected the argument of the prosecution that the tracksuit handed over by PW5 to the police would substantiate the presence of the eyewitnesses. The court, to respondents’s dismay, held that the tracksuit could only defend the presence of both witnesses in the PGIMS but not in the university.
The failure on the part of the prosecution to produce and lead Parveen and Sikander will impact the correctness of the version and the presence of the eyewitnesses, on whom the complete prosecution case depends. The court held that doubt exists on whether PW4 and PW5 were present at the crime scene during the commission of the crime and also identified some gaps in the analysis performed by the session judge.
Another significant aspect pointed out by the court was the cases filed against the deceased. The deceased was a co-accused in a case along with accused 1. PW4, in his cross-examination, denied that Sandeep had a case with Rajesh and that he had ever visited the court. Despite PW4 being a surety for the deceased in the case against the accused, he still denied going to court for the same. On the other hand, PW5 (brother) remembers going to court on a few occasions with his brother (deceased) and father but does not recall the cause.

After analysing the above facts, the court held that the statements of witnesses PW4 and PW5 were suspicious.

FSL report

The Supreme Court observed the following aspects with regard to the FSL report.

In total, there were three FSL reports received in this case. The first FSL report contains three parcels; the second contains four parcels; and the third contains five parcels. The ballistics expert who prepared the first two reports and the expert who prepared the third report are different. The police allegedly recovered two murder weapons, W/1 and W/2.
While evaluating the third FSL report, the court found some irregularities. The third ballistic report neither mentions nor evaluates W/1. It also states that W/2 (the only murder weapon) was seized from the house of Accused 1 (Rajesh).
Though according to the police investigation, two weapons (W/1 and W/2) were seized, only one was analysed in the last report. Additionally, what the court found strange was that the second FSL mentions retrieving W/1 from Rajesh’s house and W/2 from Ajay’s, but the third FSL contradicts it by describing the seizing of W/2 from Rajesh. The reliance of the prosecution on the second FSL report further increases doubts about the credibility of the third report. In conclusion, the third ballistics examiner was not given access to W/1.
Concerning the non-examination of the ballistic examiner, the prosecution claimed that the FSL reports were provided by the defence, and that too after the completion of the appellant’s statements. To examine this issue, the court had to refer to several cases.
The SC discussed Mohinder Singh v. The State (1950), Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab (2020), Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995), State of Punjab v. Jugraj Singh (2002), and two others. The court concluded that the necessity of a ballistics examination must be decided based on the nature of the evidence already available. The court further held that when direct evidence about the nature of injuries is available, the examination of the ballistics examiner would not be mandatory.
The court further observed that an examination was necessary owing to the multiple contradictions relating to the murder weapon. The court categorised this case as one where direct evidence to establish the injuries was absent. Thus, the court held that the non-examination of the ballistics examiner was highly doubtful.

Principles of Test Identification Parade

The last issue to be dealt with by the Supreme Court was the effect of the rejection of TIP. Test Identification Parade (TIP) is a practice where the accused is made to stand amongst commoners and then be identified by the witness. It helps assess the honesty of the witness. The court analysed eight precedents to establish the purpose of conducting TIP, the evidential value of TIP, the weight of a refusal to undergo TIP, and the procedure of performing a TIP. The TIP is conducted by the Judicial Magistrate at the jail.

The court summarised some landmark cases on this topic, and laid down 12 principles regarding the test identification parade:

The test identification parade is performed to test the memory and establish the credibility of the witnesses. It is done to determine whether the witnesses can identify the accused without external aid for the prosecution to identify whether any or all of them could be stated as eyewitnesses to the crime.
TIP is not statutorily mandated. No provision in either the CrPC or the Evidence Act explicitly provides statutory authority for a Test Identification Procedure. The accused and investigating agency can neither be forced to undergo nor perform TIP respectively.
Identification parades shall be governed by Section 162, CrPC. Section 162 contains some rules surrounding the statements given by witnesses.
For accuracy, the TIP must be done soon after the arrest of the accused. This would prevent the witness from seeing the accused before the TIP.
The identification of the accused by the witness is considered substantive evidence.
Facts establishing the identity of the accused are a part of Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act and hence should be treated as relevant.
A TIP may help confirm the identity of the accused if required.
Generally, the court should look for corroborating evidence for the witness’s identification of the accused, but, in cases where the court is completely satisfied with the evidence of the accused, corroboration is not required.
The failure to hold a TIP does not necessarily question the credibility of the accused.
The importance of identification differs on a case-to-case basis and must be determined by the court based on the circumstances.
Identification of the accused is not required in cases where circumstances are enough to establish the guilt of the accused.
The lower courts, depending on the available evidence and circumstances of each case, may obtain an adverse inference from the refusal of the accused to participate in the TIP.

The court further observed that the accused and PW4 (father) had met before because the deceased and the accused once had a common case against them. In the cross-examination, PW4 accepted acting as surety for his son in the criminal cases against him. Although PW4 denied attending a case where Rajesh (Accused 1) was the co-accused, PW5 in cross-examination admitted that such a possibility existed. The court held that a refusal to undergo TIP could not be the only reason to hold the accused guilty. Thus, the court concluded that in the backdrop of other discrepancies, such as the doubt about the presence of eyewitnesses and the contradictory FSL reports, the refusal by the accused to undergo TIP assumes secondary importance. The Supreme Court finally held the accused not guilty and allowed the appeal because the prosecution was unable to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. All bail bonds filed by the accused were cancelled, and their 12-year imprisonment came to an end.

Conclusion

This case reflects the adversarial nature of the Indian legal system. According to common law principles, the accused is innocent until proven guilty, and the complete burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt rests on the prosecution. In this case, the Supreme Court showcased the effectiveness of weighing the different evidence presented as primary and secondary. The SC laid down principles surrounding the Test Identification Parade and established its evidentiary value. This case also highlights the importance of the application of precedents on a case-to-case basis and a circumstantial analysis of the evidence.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the Test Identification Parade?

Test Identification is the process where the accused is made to stand along with other people in a line. The witness is then asked to identify the accused without any help from the group of people standing there.

What are the provisions related to the Test Identification Parade?

In Rajesh @ Sarkari & Anr. v. State of Haryana (2020), the SC laid down 12 provisions governing the test identification parade. An adverse inference from refusal to undergo TIP can be obtained only when direct evidence to establish the guilt of the accused does not exist. In all other situations, the performance of a TIP is not mandatory. Identification of the accused through TIP is a relevant fact under the Indian Evidence Act, and the statements made through TIP are governed by Section 162 of the same Act. A TIP must also be done immediately after the arrest of the accused.

What is the purpose of the Test Identification Parade?

A TIP is performed for the following reasons:

To check the honesty of the witness
To find out the credibility of the statements made by the witness
To check whether the witness can identify the accused without any external help.

When is the examination of the FSL expert necessary?

The examination of the FSL expert may not be required in all cases, but in cases where solid evidence regarding the death, injury or weapon is not available, and when the FSL reports are contradictory or unclear, the examination of the expert would be necessary.

References

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity