Bench comprising of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih
Introduction:
The Supreme Court dealt with the critical issue of the failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP) in a kidnapping case. The Court considered the validity of a witness identifying the accused after a significant delay and emphasized the importance of TIP in ensuring the fairness and reliability of the identification process.
Facts:
The appellant, Venkatesha, was accused of kidnapping a girl, allegedly under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)(now Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023), which involves kidnapping for the purpose of marriage or other illegal purposes. The victim was 19 years old at the time of the incident.
No Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted in this case. Instead, the witness identified the accused for the first time in the trial court, after an eight-year delay.Initially, the trial court convicted the accused under Section 366 IPC(now Section 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023) . However, the High Court reduced the conviction to Section 361 IPC (Kidnapping from lawful guardianship)(now Section 137(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023).
The appellant challenged the High Court's decision in the Supreme Court, arguing that the identification of the accused without a TIP and after such a long delay raised serious doubts about the reliability of the prosecution's case.
Issues:
- Whether the failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP) in a kidnapping case impacts the reliability of the witness’s identification in the trial court.
- Whether the identification of the accused after an eight-year delay creates reasonable doubt regarding the fairness of the trial and the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
- Whether the conviction under Section 361 IPC (now Section 137(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023) was justified, considering the victim's age and the circumstances of the case.
You can also read the Blog by visiting [Blog]
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]
Contention of Petitioner
The appellant contended that the failure to conduct a TIP was a critical flaw in the prosecution's case. The witness identified the accused for the first time in court after eight years, and such a delay severely undermined the reliability of the identification.The appellant argued that the delay in identifying the accused would likely have led to a degradation of the witness's memory, making the identification suspect.The appellant also claimed that the High Court's decision to convict under Section 361 IPC (Kidnapping from lawful guardianship) (now Section 137(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023) was inappropriate, as the victim was an adult (19 years old) at the time of the incident, and the charge under Section 361 was not applicable.
Contention of Respondent
The state contended that while no TIP was conducted, the identification by the witness in the trial court was valid, as there is no legal bar preventing identification in court.The state argued that the delay in identification did not necessarily render the evidence inadmissible, and the prosecution had provided other corroborative evidence to support the charges.The state maintained that the High Court's conviction under Section 361 IPC (now Section 137(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023) was justified, given the circumstances of the case and the age of the victim at the time of the alleged kidnapping.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court reiterated that the Test Identification Parade (TIP) is a crucial safeguard to ensure that the identification of an accused is reliable and credible. While the identification in the witness box is allowed, especially if it is done for the first time, it raises concerns when there is a substantial delay between the incident and the identification.
The Court acknowledged that an eight-year delay in identification was problematic, as it could affect the witness’s memory and the accuracy of their identification. The Court emphasized that the quality of evidence, especially regarding witness testimony, could be significantly impacted by such delays.
The Court concluded that the prosecution's case lacked the necessary reliability due to the failure to conduct a TIP and the considerable delay in identification. The Court noted that such delays can seriously undermine the fairness of the trial process, and casting doubt on the identification further jeopardized the integrity of the case.
The Court found that the victim was 19 years old at the time of the alleged kidnapping, and thus the conviction under Section 361 IPC(now Section 137(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023), which applies to the kidnapping of minors, was not appropriate. The Court set aside the conviction under Section 361 IPC(now Section 137(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023) and questioned the adequacy of the evidence for a conviction under other sections of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, Venkatesha, due to the failure of the prosecution to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP) and the significant delay in the identification of the accused. The case reinforces the need for procedural safeguards, such as TIP, in criminal trials, particularly in cases involving identification of accused persons after a long lapse of time.
