LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the identification of an accused in court for the first time, several years after the incident, is sufficient for conviction, especially when a Test Identification Parade was not conducted.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Suresh @ Unni @ Vadi Suresh vs. The State of Kerala
Judgment Date: April 30, 2024
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: April 30, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 350
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Sandeep Mehta, J.
Can a conviction be upheld solely based on a witness identifying an accused in court for the first time, years after the crime? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, highlighting the importance of proper identification procedures. This case revolves around the conviction of an individual for serious offenses, including murder, based primarily on eyewitness testimony given several years after the incident. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, has acquitted the accused, emphasizing the need for reliable identification processes. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta.
Case Background
On March 6, 2006, a violent incident occurred at a video shop in Ernakulam, Kerala. A group of individuals attacked the shop, resulting in the death of one person and grievous injuries to another. The prosecution alleged that the attack was a result of a conspiracy to murder Ajeesh (PW-2), who ran the video shop, due to his family’s association with a person murdered by the leader of the attacking group, Jaison (Accused No. 1). The incident involved a group of 11 individuals, who arrived at the shop armed with deadly weapons and country-made bombs. They attacked Ajeesh and his friend Kapil (the deceased). Kapil died from a stab wound, while Ajeesh sustained serious injuries. The attackers also threw bombs into the shop and an adjacent grocery store before fleeing.
The police investigation led to the arrest of several individuals, including Suresh @ Unni @ Vadi Suresh (the Appellant), who was identified as one of the assailants. The trial court convicted the Appellant and other accused persons. The High Court of Kerala partly allowed the appeal, setting aside some convictions but upholding the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for murder, among other offenses.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| March 6, 2006 | Incident at the video shop; Kapil is murdered, and Ajeesh (PW-2) is grievously injured. |
| March 6, 2006 | First Information Report (FIR) filed. |
| 2008 | Appellant arrested. |
| May 11, 2008 | Recovery of iron rod, allegedly on the memorandum of the Appellant. |
| August 2010 | Testimonies of witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) recorded. |
| March 30, 2011 | Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam convicts the Appellant. |
| December 6, 2012 | High Court of Kerala partly allows the appeal, upholding conviction under Section 302 of IPC. |
| April 30, 2024 | Supreme Court acquits the Appellant. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court convicted the Appellant under Sections 302, 307, 143, 147, 148, 324, 326, 427, and 449 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The High Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction under Sections 3(a) and 4(a)(i) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 127(1) of the Arms Act, 1958, but upheld the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, reducing the sentence under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC from life imprisonment to 10 years. The Appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
- Section 302: “Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” This section defines the punishment for murder.
- Section 307: “Attempt to murder.—Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.” This section defines the punishment for an attempt to murder.
- Section 143: “Punishment for unlawful assembly.—Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.” This section defines the punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly.
- Section 147: “Punishment for rioting.—Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” This section defines the punishment for rioting.
- Section 148: “Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.—Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” This section defines the punishment for rioting while armed with a deadly weapon.
- Section 324: “Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.—Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” This section defines the punishment for causing hurt with dangerous weapons.
- Section 326: “Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.—Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” This section defines the punishment for causing grievous hurt with dangerous weapons.
- Section 427: “Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees.—Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” This section defines the punishment for mischief causing damage.
- Section 449: “House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death.—Whoever commits house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence punishable with death, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” This section defines the punishment for house-trespass to commit an offense punishable with death.
- Section 149: “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.—If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.” This section defines the concept of vicarious liability in unlawful assembly.
Additionally, the case also involves:
- Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959: This section deals with the punishment for using arms in contravention of the Act.
- Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908: These sections deal with the punishment for causing explosions likely to endanger life or property.
- Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with the admissibility of information leading to discovery.
Arguments
The Appellant’s counsel, Shri A. Sirajudeen, argued that the Appellant was identified for the first time in court by PW-1 and PW-2, approximately four and a half years after the incident. He emphasized that the Appellant was not known to these witnesses previously, and no Test Identification Parade was conducted. The counsel also pointed out that the Appellant was initially described as ‘Unni’ in the first charge-sheet and later as ‘Suresh alias Vadi Suresh,’ creating doubt about his identity. Additionally, the motive for the crime was attributed to Accused No. 1, Jaison, and not the Appellant.
The Respondent’s counsel, Shri Alim Anvar, contended that PW-2 was an injured eyewitness, whose testimony holds greater evidentiary value. He argued that PW-2 had seen the Appellant assault him, making it unlikely that he would forget the assailant’s face. He also submitted that both the trial court and the High Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and found the Appellant guilty.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submissions |
|
| Respondent’s Submissions |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the identification of the accused in court for the first time, after a considerable delay, without a prior Test Identification Parade, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the identification of the accused in court for the first time, after a considerable delay, without a prior Test Identification Parade, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. | No. | The Court held that identification in court after a long delay, without a prior Test Identification Parade, is not sufficient for conviction, especially when the witnesses did not know the accused previously and the police had shown the accused to the witnesses after his arrest. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions and facts:
| Authority | Court | How it was considered |
|---|---|---|
| Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | Supreme Court of India | The Court examined the recovery of an iron rod under this provision but found it unreliable due to the long delay and the circumstances of the recovery. |
| Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Supreme Court of India | The Court examined the conviction under this section but found that the identification of the accused was not reliable. |
| Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Supreme Court of India | The Court examined the conviction under this section but found that the identification of the accused was not reliable. |
| Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Supreme Court of India | The Court examined the conviction under this section but found that the identification of the accused was not reliable. |
| Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Supreme Court of India | The Court examined the conviction under this section but found that the identification of the accused was not reliable. |
| Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Supreme Court of India | The Court examined the conviction under this section but found that the identification of the accused was not reliable. |
| Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Supreme Court of India | The Court examined the conviction under this section but found that the identification of the accused was not reliable. |
| Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Supreme Court of India | The Court examined the conviction under this section but found that the identification of the accused was not reliable. |
| Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Supreme Court of India | The Court examined the conviction under this section but found that the identification of the accused was not reliable. |
| Section 449 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Supreme Court of India | The Court examined the conviction under this section but found that the identification of the accused was not reliable. |
| Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Supreme Court of India | The Court examined the conviction under this section but found that the identification of the accused was not reliable. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the trial court and the High Court. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that the identification of the Appellant in court for the first time, after a delay of four and a half years, was not sufficient for conviction.
| Submission Made by the Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| The Appellant was identified for the first time in court after four and a half years. | The Court agreed that this was a significant issue, as the witnesses did not know the Appellant before and no Test Identification Parade was conducted. |
| The Appellant was not known to the witnesses previously. | The Court accepted this as a crucial factor undermining the reliability of the identification. |
| No Test Identification Parade was conducted. | The Court noted this as a serious lapse in the investigation, making the in-court identification unreliable. |
| The Appellant was initially described as ‘Unni’ and later as ‘Suresh alias Vadi Suresh’. | The Court considered this inconsistency as a factor contributing to the possibility of mistaken identity. |
| The motive was attributed to Accused No. 1, not the Appellant. | The Court noted that the lack of motive for the Appellant weakened the prosecution’s case. |
| PW-2 is an injured eyewitness whose testimony has greater evidentiary value. | The Court acknowledged PW-2 as an injured witness but found his identification unreliable due to the delay, lack of prior acquaintance with the Appellant, and the absence of a Test Identification Parade. |
| Both the trial court and High Court found the Appellant guilty. | The Court noted that the concurrent findings were not valid as the identification of the accused was not reliable. |
| Recovery of iron rod under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. | The Court found the recovery unreliable due to the long delay and the circumstances of the recovery. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court did not give credence to the recovery of an iron rod under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 due to the delay and circumstances of the recovery.
The Court stated, “It is to be noted that though the incident is of the year 2006, the present Appellant was arrested in the year 2008. It is further to be seen that apart from the identification parade not being held, the accused/present Appellant was shown to the witnesses by the Police. As such, we are of the considered view that conviction only on the basis of identification of the accused in the Court for the first time after four and half years of the incident would not be sufficient for maintaining the same.”
The Court further noted, “Insofar as the motive is concerned, the motive is attributed only to Accused No.1-Jaison and not to the present Appellant.”
The Court also observed, “The possibility of mistaken identity also cannot be ruled out. In the first charge-sheet, the present Appellant was described as ‘Unni’, whereas in the second charge-sheet, he was described as ‘Suresh alias Vadi Suresh’.”
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the Appellant was primarily influenced by the lack of reliable identification evidence. The Court emphasized the following points:
- Delayed Identification: The identification of the Appellant in court for the first time, four and a half years after the incident, was deemed unreliable.
- Lack of Prior Acquaintance: The witnesses did not know the Appellant before the incident, making their identification questionable.
- Absence of Test Identification Parade: The failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade raised serious doubts about the accuracy of the in-court identification.
- Police Showing the Accused: The fact that the police showed the Appellant to the witnesses before their court testimony further compromised the reliability of their identification.
- Inconsistencies in Description: The inconsistency in the Appellant’s description in the charge sheets (‘Unni’ vs. ‘Suresh alias Vadi Suresh’) raised the possibility of mistaken identity.
- Lack of Motive: The absence of a motive attributed to the Appellant weakened the prosecution’s case.
- Unreliable Recovery: The recovery of an iron rod after a long delay was deemed unreliable.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Delayed Identification | 30% |
| Lack of Prior Acquaintance | 25% |
| Absence of Test Identification Parade | 20% |
| Police Showing the Accused | 10% |
| Inconsistencies in Description | 5% |
| Lack of Motive | 5% |
| Unreliable Recovery | 5% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
Key Takeaways
- Importance of Test Identification Parade: This case underscores the importance of conducting Test Identification Parades promptly to ensure the accuracy of eyewitness identification, especially when witnesses do not know the accused.
- Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony: Eyewitness testimony, while valuable, must be scrutinized carefully, particularly when there are significant delays and no prior identification.
- Burden of Proof: The prosecution must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and mere identification in court after a long delay is not sufficient.
- Police Procedures: Police procedures must be followed meticulously to avoid compromising the integrity of the investigation and the reliability of evidence.
- Impact on Future Cases: This judgment serves as a reminder for courts to be cautious about relying solely on in-court identifications made after a long delay, especially when there is no prior identification.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the Appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that identification of an accused in court for the first time, after a considerable delay, without a prior Test Identification Parade, is not sufficient to sustain a conviction. This decision reinforces the importance of proper identification procedures and the need for reliable evidence in criminal trials. It highlights that mere in-court identification after a long delay, especially when the witnesses did not know the accused previously, is not enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This ruling does not change any previous position of law but rather reaffirms the existing principles of criminal jurisprudence.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision to acquit Suresh @ Unni @ Vadi Suresh highlights the critical need for reliable identification procedures in criminal cases. The Court emphasized that in-court identification after a significant delay, without a prior Test Identification Parade, is insufficient for conviction, especially when the witnesses did not know the accused previously and the police had shown the accused to the witnesses after his arrest. This judgment reinforces the importance of proper investigation and the need for the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.