Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder and Robbery Case Due to Lack of Identification: Amrik Singh vs. State of Punjab (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: July 11, 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 618

Judges: M. R. Shah, J. and Aniruddha Bose, J.

Can a person be convicted of a serious crime like murder and robbery based solely on a witness identifying them in court for the first time? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the accused were convicted based on an in-court identification, despite no prior identification parade. The Court examined whether such an identification is sufficient for conviction, especially when the witness’s initial statement lacked detailed descriptions of the accused. This judgment highlights the importance of proper identification procedures in criminal trials. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and Aniruddha Bose, with Justice Shah authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The case involves an incident that occurred on May 8, 2001, where Gian Chand was murdered during a robbery. The complainant, Des Raj (PW1), along with the deceased, Gian Chand, and Munshi Ram, were traveling from the Sub-Registrar’s office in Fazilka. After dropping Munshi Ram at the bus stand, Des Raj and Gian Chand were on their way to their village when they were attacked by three individuals on a scooter. One of the assailants threw chili powder into Des Raj’s eyes, causing him temporary blindness. During the ensuing scuffle, Amrik Singh, one of the accused, shot Gian Chand in the chest, resulting in his death. The assailants then fled with the scooter, which allegedly contained Rs. 5 lakhs intended for a land sale. The police investigation led to the arrest of Amrik Singh and Subhash Chander. The prosecution’s case was that the motive for the crime was robbery, as the father of the deceased had executed a sale deed in favor of the complainant’s sons, and the money was being carried for this purpose.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Amrik Singh and Subhash Chander under Section 302 read with Section 34 (murder with common intention) and Section 392 (robbery) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The accused appealed to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which upheld the Trial Court’s decision. The High Court dismissed the appeals, confirming the conviction and sentence. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302: This section deals with the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 34: This section defines the concept of common intention. It states, “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”
• Section 392: This section defines the punishment for robbery. It states, “Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery is committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.”

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Accused):

• The appellants argued that their conviction was based solely on the deposition of PW1 (Des Raj), the original complainant, and his identification of the accused in court.
• It was contended that no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted, which is crucial when the witness has not previously identified the accused.
• The appellants highlighted that PW1 did not provide any detailed description of the accused in the FIR.
• The recovery of Rs. 1 lakh each from the accused was deemed insignificant, as the prosecution failed to prove that the complainant and the deceased were carrying Rs. 5 lakhs in the scooter’s dicky. The trial court itself disbelieved the prosecution’s claim about the Rs. 5 lakhs.
• It was argued that the identification of the accused by PW1 in court for the first time was not reliable, especially without a prior TIP and without any prior description in the FIR.

Arguments by the Respondent (State):

• The State argued that the eye-witness PW1 identified the accused in court, and therefore, the absence of a TIP does not invalidate the trial.
• The State contended that a TIP is only to ensure the investigation is going in the right direction and to refresh the memory of the witnesses.
• It was submitted that the substantive evidence is the identification in court, and the TIP is not substantive evidence.
• The State argued that the recovery of Rs. 1 lakh from each of the accused further strengthens the prosecution’s case.
• The State relied on the decisions in Malkhansingh and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; (2003) 5 SCC 746 and Md. Kalam Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2008) 11 SCC 352 to support their argument that the absence of a TIP does not automatically invalidate the testimony of a witness who identifies the accused in court.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the conviction of the accused can be sustained solely on the basis of the identification of the accused by PW1 in the Court Room, without conducting a Test Identification Parade (TIP)?
2. Whether the recovery of Rs. 1 lakh each from the accused is sufficient to link them to the crime, especially when the prosecution failed to prove that the complainant and the deceased were carrying Rs. 5 lakhs in the dicky of the scooter?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Malkhansingh and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; (2003) 5 SCC 746 (Supreme Court of India): The State relied on this case to argue that a TIP is not substantive evidence and that in-court identification is substantive. The Supreme Court distinguished this case, noting that in *Malkhansingh*, the crime was committed in broad daylight, and the victim had ample opportunity to observe the accused.
• Md. Kalam Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2008) 11 SCC 352 (Supreme Court of India): The State also relied on this case, where it was held that the absence of a TIP does not automatically make the in-court identification inadmissible. The Supreme Court distinguished this case as well, noting that in *Md. Kalam*, the court had observed that the evidence of mere identification of the accused person at the trial for the first time is inherently weak and should be corroborated.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with the punishment for murder.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines common intention.
• Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the punishment for robbery.

Authorities Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court distinguished the case of Malkhansingh and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; (2003) 5 SCC 746, stating that the facts of that case were different. In *Malkhansingh*, the crime was committed in broad daylight, and the victim had ample opportunity to observe the accused. In the present case, the court noted that there was no such clarity.
• The Supreme Court also distinguished the case of Md. Kalam Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2008) 11 SCC 352, noting that the court in *Md. Kalam* had observed that the evidence of mere identification of the accused person at the trial for the first time is inherently weak and should be corroborated. In the present case, the court found that there was no corroboration.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the accused was primarily influenced by the lack of a reliable identification process. The Court emphasized that the conviction was based solely on the in-court identification by PW1, without a prior TIP, and that PW1’s initial statement in the FIR lacked a detailed description of the accused. The court also noted the failure of the prosecution to prove the robbery of Rs. 5 lakhs, making the recovery of Rs. 1 lakh each from the accused insignificant. The Court was not convinced by the prosecution’s arguments that the in-court identification was sufficient, especially given the discrepancies in PW1’s statements and the lack of prior identification. The Court’s reasoning was centered on ensuring that convictions are based on reliable and corroborated evidence, particularly in cases involving serious offenses like murder and robbery. The Court also noted that the prosecution failed to establish the link between the recovered money and the alleged stolen amount.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• A conviction cannot be solely based on a witness’s identification of the accused in court if there is no prior Test Identification Parade (TIP) and the witness did not provide a detailed description of the accused in the First Information Report (FIR).
• The absence of a TIP can be a significant factor in determining the reliability of an identification, especially when the witness is a stranger to the accused.
• The prosecution must establish a clear link between the recovered items and the alleged crime. If the prosecution fails to prove the initial crime (e.g., robbery), the recovery of some items from the accused may not be sufficient for conviction.
• Discrepancies in the witness’s statements and the lack of prior identification can undermine the credibility of the witness.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the accused be released forthwith if they are not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the basis of a witness’s identification of the accused in court, without a prior Test Identification Parade (TIP), and when the witness did not provide a detailed description of the accused in the First Information Report (FIR). This ruling reinforces the importance of proper identification procedures in criminal trials and highlights the need for corroborative evidence to support in-court identifications, especially when the witness is a stranger to the accused. This case clarifies that while in-court identification is substantive evidence, it cannot be the sole basis for conviction without a prior TIP and detailed description of the accused in the FIR.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit Amrik Singh and Subhash Chander underscores the critical need for reliable identification procedures in criminal trials. The judgment emphasizes that an in-court identification, without a prior TIP and a detailed description in the FIR, is not sufficient for conviction, especially in serious cases like murder and robbery. The Court’s decision highlights the importance of corroborative evidence and the need for a thorough investigation process that ensures the rights of the accused are protected.