Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Flawed Identification Parade: Stalin @ Satalin Samuvel vs. State (2023) INSC 522

Date of the Judgment: 18 January 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 522
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Vikram Nath, J.

Can a conviction be upheld when the primary evidence relies on a flawed identification parade and inconsistent witness statements? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, ultimately acquitting the accused. The core issue revolved around the reliability of the Test Identification Parade (TIP) and the credibility of eyewitness testimonies in a murder case. The bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath, delivered the judgment, with Justice Gavai authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves the murder of M.R. Ravi, a real estate businessman and Town Secretary of the AIADMK party in Ambattur. The prosecution alleged that the accused, including Stalin @ Satalin Samuvel (Appellant) and others, harbored enmity towards the deceased due to political affiliations and a belief that he instigated their previous arrests. On June 2, 2006, around 10:30 a.m., a group of individuals entered M.R. Ravi’s office and fatally stabbed him. Kumar (PW-1), Palani (PW-2), and Sivalingam (PW-3), employees of the deceased, were present at the scene. Following the incident, M.R. Ravi was taken to Sundaram Medical Foundation Hospital, where he died the same day.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), along with other offenses. The High Court of Judicature at Madras affirmed the conviction and sentence for some of the accused (accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6) while acquitting the others (accused Nos. 7 to 12 and 14 to 18). Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the accused Nos. 2 and 4 to 6 appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with the concept of constructive liability, where members of an unlawful assembly can be held liable for offenses committed in furtherance of their common object.
• Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with punishment of abetment.
• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
• Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with false information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person.
• Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with punishment of criminal conspiracy.
• Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with rioting, armed with deadly weapon.

Arguments

The appellants argued that the conviction was primarily based on the testimonies of Kumar (PW-1), Palani (PW-2), and Sivalingam (PW-3), who were not credible eyewitnesses. They contended that the evidence of Syed Jamal (PW-23) and M. Rangarajan (PW-25), police officers, suggested that these witnesses were not present at the scene during the crime. The appellants also challenged the validity of the Test Identification Parade (TIP), citing the evidence of Malarvizhi (PW-4), the Judicial Magistrate who conducted it, as proof that the TIP was flawed.

The respondent, represented by Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., argued that the eyewitness accounts were consistent and corroborated by the evidence of Sasikala (PW-6), which established the enmity between the accused and the deceased. The respondent also claimed that other evidence supported the presence of the accused near the deceased’s office.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the conviction of the appellants based on the evidence presented by the prosecution was sustainable.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Court held that the evidence of the eyewitnesses was unreliable, and the TIP was inadmissible due to the procedural lapses. The court also noted that the prosecution had failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court observed that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court noted that the investigating agency appeared to have gone out of its way to create evidence against the accused, as highlighted by the High Court’s observation regarding the withdrawal of witnesses who had stated they were tortured by the police to give statements.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashed the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, and acquitted the accused.

The Court stated, “It is correct, if it is stated that I had mentioned in the 5th line of page 2 of the printed F.I.R. “I had sent him to Sundaram Hospital to undergo treatment, with his friends, who came there after knowing the information ”.” This statement by Syed Jamal (PW-23) cast doubt on the presence of the eyewitnesses at the scene of the crime.

The Court also noted, “It is correct that in my report I have stated that the policeman of Korattur Police Station took photos and videos for showing to the witness to identify the accused in the lock-up which was objected by the accused Stalin and Vinayagamurthy. It is correct that I had not asked the witnesses as to whether the identified persons were known to them prior to the identification parades.” This admission by Malarvizhi (PW-4) highlighted the serious flaws in the TIP.

The Court further quoted from the High Court’s judgment, “Further at the time when the statement of Thanikaivel was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C., he has categorically stated that he was tortured by the police to give such a statement, and thus, it would be quite clear that the prosecution had withdrawn those witnesses in order to avoid the situation that if they were examined, it would go against the prosecution.” This observation underscored the Court’s concern about the integrity of the investigation.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Gireesan Nair and Others v. State of Kerala [(2023) 1 SCC 180]*: Followed. The Supreme Court relied on this case to highlight the importance of a fair and unbiased TIP and to emphasize that any prior exposure of witnesses to the accused invalidates the TIP.
• Lal Singh v. State of U.P. [(2003) 12 SCC 554]*: Followed. This case was cited within the Gireesan Nair judgment, reaffirming that prior exposure of witnesses to the accused invalidates the TIP.
• Suryamoorthi v. Govindaswamy [(1989) 3 SCC 24]*: Followed. This case was cited within the Gireesan Nair judgment, reaffirming that prior exposure of witnesses to the accused invalidates the TIP.
• Sk. Umar Ahmed Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra [(1998) 5 SCC 103]*: Followed. This case was cited within the Gireesan Nair judgment, emphasizing that if identification in the TIP has taken place after the accused is shown to the witnesses, even an identification in a court during trial is meaningless.
• Chunthuram v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2020) 10 SCC 733]*: Followed. This case was cited within the Gireesan Nair judgment, stating that a TIP conducted in the presence of a police officer is inadmissible.
• Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay [(1955) 1 SCR 903]*: Followed. This case was cited within the Gireesan Nair judgment, stating that a TIP conducted in the presence of a police officer is inadmissible.
• Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State of Maharashtra [(1999) 8 SCC 428]*: Followed. This case was cited within the Gireesan Nair judgment, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a healthy ratio between suspects and non-suspects during a TIP.
• Ravi v. State [(2007) 15 SCC 372]*: Followed. This case was cited within the Gireesan Nair judgment, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a healthy ratio between suspects and non-suspects during a TIP.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The unreliability of the eyewitness testimonies due to inconsistencies and the possibility that the witnesses were not present at the scene of the crime.
• The significant procedural flaws in the Test Identification Parade (TIP), which rendered it inadmissible.
• The prosecution’s failure to establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The court also took note of the High Court’s observation that the investigating agency appeared to have gone out of its way to create evidence against the accused.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

✓ The judgment emphasizes the critical importance of a fair and unbiased Test Identification Parade (TIP) in criminal investigations.

✓ It highlights the need for credible and consistent eyewitness testimonies to support a conviction.

✓ The case underscores the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and any lapses in procedure or investigation can lead to an acquittal.

✓ This judgment serves as a reminder that the investigating agencies should not go out of their way to create evidence against the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, acquitting the accused of all charges. The bail bonds of the accused were discharged.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained if it is based on unreliable eyewitness testimonies and a flawed Test Identification Parade (TIP). The judgment reinforces the importance of procedural fairness and the need for the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. This case does not change the previous position of law but reiterates the existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system. The acquittal of the accused was a result of significant flaws in the investigation, particularly the flawed TIP and unreliable eyewitness testimonies. This judgment reinforces the need for meticulous adherence to procedural guidelines and the importance of credible evidence in securing convictions.