Supreme Court of India

MUNNAversusSTATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI)

Citation: 2003 INSC 429
Decided: 27 August 2003
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: S RAJENDRA BABU

Holding

When an accused refuses to take part in a test identification parade, the prosecution may rely on the eyewitness testimony recorded in court, and such identification is not per se valueless.

Summary

The appellant Munna was convicted under the IPC, TADA and the Arms Act for participating in a robbery in which a lady’s gold bangles were taken. The prosecution’s case rested on the testimony of three eye‑witnesses who identified Munna for the first time in court, as no prior test identification parade (TIP) had been held because Munna refused to participate. Munna argued that because he was not named in the FIR or in statements under Section 161 CrPC and had not been identified in a TIP, the court‑identifications were valueless. The Supreme Court held that when an accused declines to attend a TIP, the prosecution may proceed normally and rely on the witnesses’ in‑court identification; the lack of a prior TIP does not render such testimony inadmissible, though its weight is a matter of fact. Considering the circumstances—daylight robbery, close proximity of witnesses, and no reason to doubt their credibility—the Court found the identification reliable and affirmed the conviction.

Issues considered

The effect of an accused's refusal to participate in a test identification parade on the admissibility and weight of eyewitness identification made for the first time in court.
Whether identification of an accused not named in the FIR or Section 161 statements, without a prior TIP, is valueless.
Whether the conviction can stand on such identification evidence.

Legislation cited

Arms Act
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 161, s. 19, s. 313
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 3, s. 9
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 392, s. 397
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Acts. 5

Subjects

test identification paradeeyewitness identificationrefusal to participateevidentiary valuecriminal procedureTADAconviction

Judgment

A MUNN A
v.
STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI)

AUGUST 27, 2003

B [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.]

Criminal Trial-Test Identification Parade-Accuser's refusal to
participate-Effect of-Held: In such cases prosecution proceeds in a normal
c manner like other cases and relies upon the testimony of witnesses recorded
in the Court during course of trial-On facts, accused refusing to participate
in TIP, .identification of accused in Court for first time, accused not named in
FIR or statement in Court under Section 161 Cr.P.C.-Further no reason to
falsely implicate accused-Identity of accused also established-Hence, case
established against the accused and he was rightly convicted by trial Court-
D Penal Code, 1860-Sections 392 and 1208-Evidence Act,1872-Sections 9
and 3-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 161.

According to the prosecution, four persons committed robbery in a
house where a lady was alone. It is alleged that the robbers broke open
the lock of the almirah and removed currency notes and other articles.
E Appellant-accused removed gold bangles from the hands of the lady. Her
husband entered the house by breaking open the door on hearing her
shouts. Seeing him the appellant-accused jumped out on the road from
the balcony of the house with currency notes. Other two accused all>o
jumped but the husband caught one of them who was later taken into
F custody. Hearing the commotion, Head Constable on patrol duty also
arrived and saw robbers jumping from the balcony and running away.
FIR was lodged. On the basis of the disclosure statement made by accused
in custody his companions in the crime were arrested. Appellant-accused
was arrested and knife was recovered from his possession. He refused to
participate in the test identification parade. Charges were framed. Trial
G Court convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused with others; however
one of them was acquitted. The two accused have not preferred any appeal.
Hence the present appeal by the appellant-accused .
•
Appellant-accused contended that he belonged to another town and

H 1048
MUNNA v. STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) 1049

was not at all known to the witnesses from before; that he was neither A
named in the FIR nor in the statements of the witnesses under Section
161 Cr.P.C, and, therefore, the statement of the witnesses given in Court
for the first time where they identified and pointed towards appellant-
accused as being one of the robbers who had participated in the
commission of the crime, was of no value and could not be relied upon.
B
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: I.I. The normal rule is that the testimony !>fa witness, who
does not know an accused from before and identifies him for the first time
in the Court as a person who had participated in the commission of the C
crime, without holding a previous identification parade does not ca:rry
much weight. The substantive evidence of a witness is the statement in
Court but as a rule of prudence earlier identification proceedings are held
in order to corroborate the testimony of a witness given in Court as
regards the identity of the accused who is not known to him from before.
(1056-C, DI D
1.2. The abovesaid rule can have no application to a case where the
accused refuses to participate in the test identification parade. The
prosecution has no option but to proceed in a normal manner like all other
cases and rely upon the testimony of the witnesses, which is recorded in E
Court during the course of the trial of the case. In such a case, accused
cannot contend that the statement of the eye-witnesses made for the first
time in Court, wherein they specifically point towards him as a person
who had taken part in the commission of the crime, should not be relied
upon. This plea is available provided the prosecution is itself responsible
for not holding a test identification parade. (1056-H; 1057-A, 61 F

1.3. There is no straight jacket formula that in a case where the
accused is not named in the F.l.R. or in statement under Section 161
Cr.P.C. or is not otherwise known from before, the testimony of a witness
for the first time in Court, without a prior test identification parade, G
becomes valueless. The testimony of such a witness has to be judged like
that of any other witness having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case and also keeping in view the fact that prior identification
proceedings had not been held. [1058-E, Fl

2.1. In the instant case, the witnesses, namely inmates of the house H
1050 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A and the head constable clearly stated in their testimony that the appellant
was one of the robbers who took part in the commission of the crime and
thereafter jumped from the balcony of the first floor and succeeded in
running away. The incident took place during day hours when there was
sufficient light. The wife saw robbers from very close distance as the hands
of the wife were tied and her mouth was gagged by them. The wife has
B assigned a very specific role of removing her golden bangles to the
appellant. Both the prosecution witnesses are respectable persons having
good status in the society. There is absolutely no reason why they would
falsely implicate the appellant. Further the manner in which.the crime was
committed and the manner in which the appellant escaped after jumping
C from the first floor of the house clearly shows that the three witnesses got
full opportunity to see and identify him. Thus, their testimony fully
establishes the participation of appellant in the crime. Also neither the
appellant has led any evidence nor he has succeeded in bringing out
anything in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses which may
cast even a slightest doubt regarding his participation and taking an active
D role in the crime in question. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in
establishing the case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt
and the trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced him. (1059-8-:FI

Malkhansingh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, JT (2003) 5 SC
E 323, relied on.

Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel and Ors. ·v. State o/Gu/arat, 120001 l SCC
358 and State (Delhi Admn.) v. V.C. Shukla 11980) 2 SCC 665, referred to.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 749
F of 1999.

From the Judgment and Order dated 25/26.9.97 of the Additional
Designated Court-II, Delhi in F.l.R. No. 246 of 1991 Police Station Roop
Nagar New Delhi in S.C.No. 13/97.

G S.A. Siddiqui, Hasan Anzar, Goodwill Indeevar for the Appellant.

Ashok Bhan, R.K. Rathore, Satibir Pillania, Avtar Singh, D.S. Mahra
and Ms. Sushma Suri for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
MUNNA v. STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 1051
G.P. MA THUR, J. I. This appeal has been preferred under Section 19 A ·'
of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short
'TADA') against the judgment and order dated 26.9.1997 of Additional
Designated Court II, Delhi, by which the appellant Munna. and co-accused
Ravi and Rakesh @Ravi were convicted under Sections 392/120-B IPC and
Section 120-B IPC and were sentenced to 7 years R.L and a fine of Rs. 500
under the first count and 4 years R.L and a fine of Rs. 500 under the second B
count. Ravi accused was further convicted under Section 397 IPC and Section
5 of TADA and was sentenced to 7 years R.L under the first count and 5
years and a fine of Rs.500/- under tile second count. In default of payment
of fine under each count, the accused were to undergo 3 months R.L and all
the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It appears that Ravi and C
Rakesh @ Ravi accused did not prefer any appeal challenging their conviction
and sentence and only the appeal preferred by Munna accused is before us.

2. The case of the prosecution, as disclosed from the evidence, in brief
is that PW6 Shri Prakash Bablani and his wife PW3 Smt. Sadhna Bablani
were residing on the first floor of house no.27/21, Shakti Nagar, Delhi. The D
incident took place at about 11.00 a.m. on 5.10.1991, when the maid servant
had left after finishing her daily work and the front door of the house was
open. Smt. Sadhna Bablani who was alone in the house was talking to someone
on telephone when four boys entered the house and bolted the door from
inside. They enquired about the keys of the almirah and tied her hands on the E
back side and a portion of a lungi was forcibly inserted in her mouth so that
she may not be able to make any noise. One of the robbers who was holding
a country-made pistol was constantly holding out threats that he would shoot
her. The robbers broke open the lock of the steel almirah by using a curtain
rod and a screw driver and removed currency notes worth about Rs.1.5 to 2
lakhs and some silver coins and other articles. One of the robbers removed F
the golden bangles from the hands of Smt. Sadhna Bablani. When the robbers
were still inside the house, Prakash Bablani came from outside and started
ringing the electric bell. Not getting any response from his wife, he kept on
ringing the bell for a long time. Smt. Sadhna Bablani then somehow gathered
courage and shouted. Thereafter, Prakash Bablani broke open the door and
came inside. Seeing him one of the robbers kept the currency notes in a G
polythene bag and jumped down on the road from the balcony of the house.
Amongst the robbers, one person namely, Ravi was caught by Prakash Bablani.
The remaining two also succeeded in jumping from the balcony of the house
to the road and managed to escape. Hearing the commotion and noise PW5,
Mohd. Akbar, Head Constable, who was on patrol duty, had also arrived at H
1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A the scene and had seen the robbers jumping from the balcony and running
away. He helped Prakash Bablani in apprehending Ravi accused. In order to
free himself, Ravi had given blows by the country-made pistol on the forehead
of Prakash Baqlani and in that process the same fell down on the ground.
Thereafter, information was sent and the local police came to the spot who
took Ravi accused in their custody. On the basis of the statement of Smt.
B Sadhna Bablani, an FIR was lodged on the same day at P.S. Roop Nagar. The
investigation of the case was done by PWIO Satya Pal, S.I., P.S. Roop Nagar.
He summoned the crime team and dog squad. The country-made pistol was
~
taken into possession and a cartridge was unloaded from the same. One
cartridge was found on the floor and the same was also taken into possession.
c The articles were sealed and their seizure memo was prepared. He also took
in his possession the lungi which had been used in gagging Smt. Sadhna
Bablani and the same was sealed. Ravi made a disclosure statement on the
next day that his companions in the crime were Munna, Rakesh @ Ravi and
Sat Narain. Rakesh was then arrested from Mandolia Park and a country-
made pistol was recovered from his possession. On the basis of a disclosure
D statement made by him on 9.10.1991 a bundle of currency notes amounting
to Rs. I 0,000/- was recovered from under some cloth from Jhuggi No.55 in '
Lal Bagh. This bundle of currency notes bore a stamp of "Bablani Plywood
Traders Pvt. Ltd." and also ofVijaya Bank. The appellant Munna was arrested
on 14.2.1992 and a knife was recovered from his possession for which a case
E under the Arms Act was registered against him. He was produced with his
face muffled in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on 15.2.1992
and a prayer was made for holding his test identification parade, but he
declined to participate in the same. Similar application had also been moved
by the investigating officer earlier on 14.10.1991 for holding test identification
parade of Rakesh @ Ravi accused, but he had also declined to participate in
F any test identification parade. A.fter completing investigation, PWIO Satya
Pal, S.I., initially submitted a charge-sheet against two accused, namely, Ravi
and Rakesh @ Ravi. A. supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against
Munna accused, as he had been declared as absconder and had been arrested
later on.
G 3. The designated Court framed charges under Sections 120-B and 392
read with Section 120-B !PC against four accused, viz. Munna, Ravi, Rakesh .c
@ Ravi and Kishan. Charges under Section 397 read with Section 392 !PC
and.under Section 5 TADA and 87/27 Arms Act was also framed against "·
,,-

Ravi accused by the order dated 26.8.1995. The charges were read over and
H explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
MUNNA v. STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 1053
tried. The prosecution in support of its case examined 11 witnesses including A
three eye-witnesses and filed some documentary evidence. The material
exhibits were also produced before the Court. The accused in their statement
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the case of the prosecution and submitted
that they had been falsely implicated. However, they did not lead any evidence
in their defence. The Designated Court believed the case of the prosecution B
and convicted and sentenced Munna, Ravi and Rakesh @ Ravi, as mentioned
earlier. Kishan accused was, however, acquitted.

4. Before we consider the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties, it will be convenient to briefly notice the evidence, which has been
adduced by the prosecution. The detailed version of the incident has been C
given by PW3 Smt. Sadhna Bablani. She has stated that after the maid had
left that at about II a.m. on 5.10.1991, she had not bolted the door of the
house from inside as she was talking to someone on telephone. She was all
alone in the house as her husband had gone out. At that time, four boys
entered the house and after bolting the door from inside enquired from her
about the keys of the almirah. They dragged her inside the room, tied her D
hands on the back side and forcibly inserted a lungi in her mouth so that she
may not be able to shout. The accused persons broke open the lock of the
almirah by using a curtain rod and a screw driver and thereafter removed
cash amounting to about Rs. 1.5 to 2 lakhs, some silver coins and other
articles. After pointing towards Munna accused she stated that he had removed E
four golden bangles from her hands. After pointing towards Ravi accused,
she stated that he was holding a country-made pistol in his hand and was
threatening her that he would shoot her. During this process about half an
hour elapsed and then the electric bell in the house started ringing. She
gathered courage and shouted loudly. After hearing the shouts, her husband
Prakash Bablani, who was ringing the bell, broke open the door and came F
inside the house. Munna accused then put all the currency notes in a polythene
bag and jumped down on the road from the balcony of the first floor of the
house. Rakesh @ Ravi and Kishan accused also jumped down but Ravi
accused collided with her husband who caught hold of him. She further
stated that meanwhile one police constable also came there and soon thereafter G
neighbours also started collecting there. Ravi accused had hit her husband
with a country-made pistol and a bullet had fallen down from the same on
the floor. Her statement was then recorded by the police which she signed
and the same was sent to the police station along with a Rukka. She identified
the country-made pistol which Ravi accused was carrying and which had
been sealed on the spot after the police had arrived on the scene. PW6 H

•
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Prakash Bablani has stated that on 5.10.1991 at about 9.45 a.m. he had gone
to the school for depositing the fee of his son and he returned from there at
about 11.30 a.m. He pressed the electric bell and not getting any response
from his wife continued to do so for 2-3 minutes. After some time, he heard
the shouts raised by his wife and then he realised that there was something
wrong inside. He then broke open the door of the house forcibly and saw
B four robbers there. He also raised an alarm and caught hold of one of them,
namely, Ravi, who was carrying a country-made pistol. Hearing the alann
raised by him and his wife, Mohd. Akbar, Head Constable, who was nearby,
came inside the house and helped him in catching hold of Ravi accused and
in that process the pistol which he was carrying fell down on the ground. He
C has also stated that there was a practice of stamping the bundles of currency
notes with the stamp of their firm. He identified the bundle of currency notes
recovered on the pointing out of Rakesh accused on which there was a slip
containing the stamp of the firm "Bablani Plywood Traders Pvt. Ltd." PW5
Mohd. Akbar, Head Constable stated that at about 11.00 a.m., he was near
house no. 27/21, Shakti Nagar, when he heard some noise and shouts coming
D from the same. He immediately rushed to the house and saw .four robbers
who were present inside, three of whom jumped from the balcony and ran
away. He had clearly
.
seen the aforesaid
.
three persons whom he identified as
Munna, Rakesh @ Ravi and Kishan, who were present in the dock in the
·Court.
E 5. PWl Mrs. Beena Thakur, ASI has stated that she was posted at P.S.
Roop Nagar on 5. I 0.199 I and on the basis of the Rtikka sent by S. I. Satya
Pal, she recording the formal F.I.R. PW4 Om Prakash has deposed that he
had kept the country-made' pistol and cartridges in sealed condition in the
malkhana of the police station on 5.10.1991. PW7 Ram Kumar, ASI, has
F deposed that he had arrested Rakesh @ Ravi accused on 9.10.1991 who
made a disclosure statement that he had kept Rs. 10,000 in his jhuggi at Lal
Bagh. He recorded his disclosure statement and thereafter at his pointing out
a bundle of currency notes was recovered from jhuggi no.B-55, Lal Bagh and
the said bundle contained a slip with stamp of"Bablani Plywood Traders Pvt.
G Ltd." and also of Vijaya Bank. PWS Jagdish Kumar is brother of PW6 Prakash
Bablani and had accompanied the police party when the bundle of currency
notes was recovered on the pointing out of Rakesh @ Ravi accused. He.
identified the stamp of his firm on the slip which had been tied over the
bundle of currency notes. PW9 Hari Ram, Head Constable has deposed that
Ravi accused had made a disclosure statement on 6.10.1991 giving out the
H names of his accomplices namely Rakesh@ Ravi and Munna who had taken

•
MUNNA v. STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 1055
part in the commission of the crime. PW I0 Satya Pal was posted as S.I. at A
P.S. Roop Nagar on 5.10.1991 and in his statement he has given details of
the various steps taken by him during the investigation of the case. After
pointing out towards Ravi accused he stated that he had seen him in the
house of Prakash Bablani soon after he reached after getting information
about the robbery and he had formally taken him into custody. PWl 1 Davinder B
Singh has deposed that he was posted as S.I. of the crime team R.K. Puram
and after getting call from P.S. Roop Nagar on 5.10.1991, he had gone to the
spot and thereafter he had submitted his report.

6. The testimony of PW3 Smt. Sadhna Bablani, PW6 Prakash Bablani
and PW5 Mohd. Akbar, Head Constable conclusively establishes that four C
persons committed robbery in the house 27/21, Shakti Nagar, Delhi at about
11.00 a.m. on 5.10.1991 in which four golden bangles, about Rs.1.5 to 2
lakhs in cash and some other articles were carried away. In fact, the
commission of robbery has not at all been challenged from the side of the
accused. PW3 and PW6 are the inmates of the house and their presence on
the spot is most natural and there is no reason to doubt the same. PW5 Mohd. D
Akbar, Head Constable has also given a very plausible explanation for his
presence near the house and his reaching the spot after hearing the shouts is
also most natur<'I in the circumstances of the case. Both PW3 and PW6 have
made a categoric statement that PW5 came inside the house and was also
instrumental in apprehending Ravi accused. All these three witnesses have E
clearly stated that the appellant Munna was one of the robbers who took part
in the commission of the crime and thereafter jumped from the balcony of the
first floor to the ground and succeeded in running away. PW3 Smt. Sadhna
Bablani has assigned a very specific role of removing her golden bangles to
the appellant. She saw him from very close distance. The testimony of these
witnesses fully establishes the participation of appellant Munna in the crime F
in question. Neither the appellant has led any evidence nor he has succeeded
in bringing out anything in the cross-examination of the aforesaid prosecution
witnesses which may cast even a slightest doubt regarding his participation
and taking an active role in the crime in question.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that Munna accused G
belonged to Khurja town in the district of Bulandshahar and was not at all
known to the witnesses from before. He was neither named in the FIR nor
was named in the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In
these circumstances, the statement of the witnesses given in Court for the
first time where they identified and pointed towards accused Munna as being H
1056 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A one of the robbers who had participated in the commission of the crime, was.
of no value and could not be relied upon. In support of his submission,
learned.counsel has referred to Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel & Ors. v. State
of Gujarat, (2000) I SCC 358, wherein it has been observed that identification
of a named accused only in Court when the accused was not known earlier
to the witnesses had to be treated as valueless. In the said case reference was
B made to an earlier decision of this Court in State (Delhi Admn.) v. V.C.
Shukla, [ 1980) 2 SCC 665, wherein it was observed that the evidence of the
witness in Court and his identifying the accused only in the Court without
previous identification parade was a valueless exercise.

C 8. It is true that the normal rule is that testimony of a witness, who does
not know an accused from ·before and identifies him for the first time in the
Court as a person who had participated in the commission of the crime,
without holding a previous identification parade does not carry much weight.
The substantive evidence of a witness is the statement in Court but as a rule
of prudence earlier identification proceedings are held in order to corroborate
D the testimony of a witness given in Court as regards the identity of the
accused who is not known to him from before. However, this normal rule can
have no application. in the present case on account of own conduct of the
appellant. The investigating officer produced appellant Munna 'baparda' (with ..,_
'
his face muffled) in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate on 15.2.1992 and
E an application was given praying that necessary orders be passed for holding
his test identification parade. It was mentioned in the application that after
his arrest Munna had been kept 'baparda' and is being produced in Court in
that condition. However, the appellant categorically refused to participate in
a test identification parade. Thereafter, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate
passed the following order :
F
"Accused Munna in muffled face in police custody is produced
and identified before me by SI Satpal Singh P.S. Roop Nagar. Accused
was questioned whether he wanted to join test identification parade.
He refused to join. He is warned that his refusal to join TIP may be
interpreted in evidence against him. Still he does not want to participate
G in the TIP. Let his statement be recorded."

Thereafter, the statement of appellant Munna was recorded where he
stated that he did not want to participate in the test identification parade
because the witnesses had already seen him in the police station.

H 9. In a case where an accused himself refuses to participate in a test
MUNNA v. STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) [G.P. MATHUR, .I.] 1057

identification parade, it is not open to him to contend that the statement of A
the eye-witnesses made for the first time in Court, wherein they specifically
point towards him as a person who had taken part in the commission of the
crime, should not be relied upon. This plea is available provided the
prosecution is itself responsible for not holding a test identification parade.
However, in a case where the accused himself declines to participate in a test
identification parade, the prosecution has no option but to proceed in a nonnal B
manner like all other cases and rely upon the testimony of the witnesses,
which is recorded in Court during the course of the trial of the case.

IO. The effect of not holding a prior test identification parade has been
recently examined in considerable detail by a three-Judge Bench in C
Malkhansingh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, JT (2003) 5 SC 323 and
after review of practically all the earlier decisions, it has been held as under:

"It is trite to say that the substantive evidence is the evidence of
identification in court. Apart from the clear provisions of section 9 of
the Evidence Act, the position in law is well settled by a catena of D
decisions of this Court. The facts, which establish the identity of the
accused persons, are relevant under section 9 of the Evidence Act. As
a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is the !>tatement
made in court. The evidence of mere identification of the accused
person at the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently
of a weak character. The purpose of a prior test identification, therefore, E
is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence. It is
accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for
corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to the
identity of the accused who are strangers to them, in the form of
earlier identification proceedings. This rule of prudence, however, is F
subject to exceptions, when, for example, the court is impressed by
a particular witness on whose testimony it can safely rely, without
such or other corroboration. The identification parades belong to the
stage of investigation, and there is no provision in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, which obliges the investigating agency to hold or confers
a right upon the accused to claim, a test identification parade. Failure G
to hold a test identification parade would not make inadmissible the
evidence of identification in court. The weight to be attached to such
identification should be a matter for the courts of fact.

It is no doubt true that much evidentiary value cannot be attached to
the identification of the accused in court where identifying witness is H
1058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A a total stranger who had just a fleeting glimpse of the person identified
or who had no particular reason .to remember the person concerned,
if the identification is made for the first time in court.

The substantive evidence is the evidence of identification in court
and the test identification parade provides corroboration to the
B identification of the witness in court, if required. However, what
weight must be attached to the evidence of identification in court,
which is not preceded by a test identification parade, is a matter for
the courts of fact to examine."

11. It may be pointed out that in the above noted case, it was the
C prosecution whic~ did not hold a prior test identification parade and for this
lapse the accused were not responsible in any manner as they had never
declined to attend or participate in a test identification parade. However, on
the finding that the prosecuterix appeared to be a witness on whom implicit
reliance could be placed and there was no reason why she should falsely
D identify the appellants as a perpetrator of the crime if they had not actually
committed the offence, coupled with other circumstances of the. case, the
accused were convicted and sentenced under Section 376 IPC. What this
authority holds is that there is no straight jacket formula that in ~ case where
the accused is not named in the F. !.R. _or in st~tement under Section 16 l
Cr.P.C. or is not otherwise known from before, the testimo~y of a witness for
E the first time in Court, without a prior test identification .parade, becomes
valueless. The testimony of such a witness has to be judged like that of any
other witness having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
also keeping in view the fact that prior identification proceedings had not
been held. · . .

F 12. The case in hand stands on much better footing. Though the
prosecution moved an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate to hold
a test identification parade, but it was the appellant who declined to participate
in the same. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant Munna
stated that he was arrested from his house in Khurja on 14.2.1992. He was
G produced in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate on 15.2.1992 by the
investigating officer of the case. In the application it was stated ·that he had
been kept 'baparda' and was produced in Court 'baparda' as a test identification
parade had to be held. Had he n~t been produced in 'baparda' condition, the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate would have recorded the said fact. It is not
a case where there was a long time gap between the time of the arrest and
H his production in Court, as according to the own statement ~f the appellant,

,t
MUNNA v. STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI) [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 1059

he had been arrested only on.the previous day. In his statement under Section A
313 Cr.P.C., he did not state that he had been shown to the witnesses at the
police station.

13. The appellant has not been able to show any reason whatsoever
much less establishing it as to why PW3, PW5 and PW6 have falsely implicated
him. So far as PW3 and PW6 are concerned, they are residing in Delhi and B
the appellant is resident of Khurja town in the district of Bulandshahar. Both
the prosecution witnesses are respectable persons having a reasonable good
status in society. There is absolutely no reason why they would falsely
implicate the appellant. The incident took place during day hours at about
l l .00 a.m. when there was sufficient light. The hands of PW3 Smt. Sadhna C
Bablani were tied and a lungi had been inserted in her mouth and naturally
in this process, the robbers were very close to her. She has specifically
assigned the role of removing her golden bangles to the appellant. Her
testimony shows that the robbers remained inside her house for about half an
hour. During all this time, she had ample opportunity to closely see and
identify the appellant. Similarly, her husband PW6 Prakash Bablani had got D
complete opportunity to see the robbers when he entered inside his house
after breaking open the door. The process of jumping from the balcony of the
first floor to the ground would have taken some time. PW5 Mohd. Akbar is
a Head Constable who, by the very nature of his work and duty, is trained
to recognise and apprehend criminals. The manner in which the crime was E
committed and the manner in which the appellant escaped after jumping from
the first floor of the house clearly shows that the three witnesses got full
opportunity to see and identify him. In these circumstances, there is no reason
at all for not placing reliance upon their testimony. We have given cc;teful
consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and
the evidence on record. In our opinion, the prosecution has succeeded in F
establishing the case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and
the learned Designated Court rightly convicted and sentenced him.

14. The appeal is accordingly dismissed and the conviction and sentence
of the appellant, as recorded by the learned Designated Court, is affirmed.
The appellant is on bail. He shall surrender forthwith to undergo the sentences G
imposed upon him. The concerned Magistrate shall take immediate steps to
take the appellant into custody.

N.J. Appeal dismissed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "test identification parade"Sign in to search