Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Due to Lack of Proper Identification: P. Sasikumar vs. State (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: July 8, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 474

Judges: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of a witness’s identification of an accused in court, especially when the accused was a stranger and was wearing a disguise at the time of the crime? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the brutal murder of a 14-year-old girl. The Court ultimately acquitted the accused, emphasizing the importance of proper identification procedures, such as a Test Identification Parade (TIP), in cases where the accused is not known to the witnesses. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, with Justice Dhulia authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves the murder of a 14-year-old girl in her home on the night of November 13, 2014. The girl’s father, PW-1 Durairaj, returned home around 7:15 PM to find his daughter critically injured. He had tried calling her earlier to remind her about her tiffin, but she did not answer. Upon reaching his house, he saw a man, aged about 25 years, wearing a helmet, walking down the stairs. He found the door open and his daughter bleeding profusely from her neck. Neighbors informed him that two people had come to his house and killed his daughter. The girl was rushed to the hospital, where she was declared dead. The post-mortem revealed that the cause of death was shock due to the antemortem injuries on the neck and profuse bleeding.

The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by the father of the deceased, PW-1 Durairaj. The police apprehended two accused on November 15, 2014. The prosecution’s case was primarily based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution alleged that the main accused, Yugadhithan (accused no. 1), had a motive to commit the murder as he was infatuated with the elder sister of the deceased and had threatened the family. The present appellant, Sasikumar (accused no. 2), was allegedly seen with the main accused at the time of the incident. However, the case against the present appellant rested primarily on the identification by witnesses, as there was no direct evidence linking him to the crime.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the appellant, P. Sasikumar (accused no. 2), under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as under Sections 449, 404, and 201 read with Section 302 of the IPC. The High Court of Judicature at Madras upheld this conviction. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of India. Notably, the main accused (accused no. 1) did not file an appeal before the High Court, and only the appeal of the present appellant was before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines 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 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance 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 449 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with house-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death.
• Section 404 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at the time of his death.
• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.

Arguments

The prosecution argued that the appellant was identified by PW-1 and PW-5 as one of the individuals present at the scene of the crime. PW-5, a neighbor, claimed to have seen the appellant wearing a green monkey cap entering the deceased’s house with the main accused. The prosecution emphasized the recovery of incriminating materials on the pointing out of the accused, including a monkey cap, and blood-stained clothes. The prosecution relied on the dock identification of the appellant by PW-5, asserting that he was an independent witness with no reason to falsely implicate the appellant.

The defense argued that the identification of the appellant was unreliable due to the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP). The defense highlighted that the appellant was a stranger to both PW-1 and PW-5, and that they had seen him for the first time wearing a monkey cap, which covered most of his face. The defense contended that the dock identification by PW-5 was weak and not sufficient to establish the appellant’s identity beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in the absence of a TIP. The defense also pointed out that the recoveries made from the accused were not done with the permission of the Magistrate and therefore were not relevant.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issue:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant based on the dock identification by the witnesses, in the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP), is sustainable?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order, acquitting the appellant. The Court held that the identification of the appellant was doubtful due to the absence of a TIP. The Court emphasized that the appellant was a stranger to the witnesses, and they had seen him for the first time while he was wearing a monkey cap. The Court stated that the dock identification was not reliable enough to convict the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court clarified that its decision was based on the lack of evidence against the present appellant and would not affect the case of the main accused.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the lack of a proper Test Identification Parade (TIP) and the unreliable nature of the dock identification. The Court emphasized the fact that the accused was a stranger to the witnesses and was wearing a face covering at the time of the incident. This raised serious doubts about the accuracy of the identification, leading the Court to conclude that the prosecution had failed to prove the identity of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court emphasized that “the identification in TIP of an accused is not a substantive piece of evidence. The substantive piece of evidence, or what can be called evidence is only dock identification that is identification made by witness in Court during trial.” However, in this case, the Court found that the dock identification was not reliable due to the circumstances, stating, “In cases where accused is a stranger to a witness and there has been no TIP, the trial court should be very cautious while accepting the dock identification by such a witness.” The Court also noted that “not conducting a TIP in this case was a fatal flaw in the police investigation and in the absence of TIP in the present case the dock identification of the present appellant will always remain doubtful.”

Key Takeaways

• Importance of TIP: A Test Identification Parade (TIP) is crucial when the accused is a stranger to the witness, especially if the accused was wearing a disguise at the time of the incident.
• Reliability of Dock Identification: Dock identification alone is not sufficient to convict an accused, especially if there was no prior TIP and the witness is identifying a stranger.
• Flaws in Investigation: The absence of a TIP and the manner in which recoveries were made were considered as fatal flaws in the police investigation.
• Benefit of Doubt: The benefit of doubt always belongs to the accused, and the prosecution must prove the identity of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith unless he is required in some other case. The Court clarified that its decision was based on the evidence against the present appellant and would not affect the case of the main accused.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases where the accused is a stranger to the witness and has been seen wearing a face covering, a Test Identification Parade (TIP) is essential. The absence of a TIP makes the dock identification unreliable, and the prosecution must prove the identity of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This case reinforces the importance of proper identification procedures and highlights the need for caution when relying solely on dock identification, especially when the accused is a stranger and was disguised at the time of the incident. This judgment does not change previous positions of law but reinforces existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, P. Sasikumar, in a murder case, emphasizing the critical role of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) when witnesses are identifying a stranger, especially one who was disguised at the time of the crime. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of meticulous investigation and the need to establish the identity of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment serves as a reminder of the limitations of dock identification in such cases and the significance of adhering to proper legal procedures.