Holding

The prosecution failed to establish the appellant's presence or participation in the crime, rendering the conviction unsustainable and resulting in his acquittal.

Summary

The appellant, Sonu Kumar, was one of six accused charged under IPC sections 452, 323 r/w 34, 376(2)(g) and SC/ST Act section 3(x) for the alleged rape of a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste. The prosecution’s case relied on the victim’s testimony that the accused were addressing each other by names, and on a test identification parade that the trial court held was not conducted in accordance with law. The trial court convicted five of the six accused, including the appellant, while the High Court affirmed the convictions. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had proved the appellant’s presence at the scene or his participation in the crime, noting the absence of a valid identification parade and lack of any material linking him to the offence. Finding no evidence of his involvement, the Court acquitted the appellant and ordered his release, allowing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution proved the appellant's presence at the spot of occurrence and participation in the alleged crime.
Whether the identification of the appellant through a test identification parade that did not meet legal requirements can be relied upon for conviction.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 154
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 323, s. 34, s. 376(2)(g), s. 452
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989s. 3(x)

Subjects

identification paradetest identificationrapescheduled casteIPCSC/ST Actacquittalevidence

Judgment

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 1019

SONU KUMAR A
v.
STATE OF H.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1660 of 2008)
OCTOBER 22, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860/Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - ss. 452 and 323 r/ C
w s. 34 and s. 376 (2) (g)I s. 3 (x) - Commission of rape of
woman belonging to Scheduled Caste - Offence committed
by six accused -In Test Identification Parade, prosecutrix iden-
tifying five of the accused - The five accused convicted by
courts below - However, courts holding that Tl Parade was not
0
conforming to the requirement of Law - Appeal by one of the
accused - Held: Presence of the appellant-accused at the
spot of occurrence or his participation in crime not proved -
Hence acquitted. ,
Appellant-accused alongwith five other accused was , E
·prosecuted for offences punishable u/ss. 452, 323 r/w s.
34 and s. 376 (2) (g) IPC and u/ s. 3 (x) of Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989.
Prosecution case was that the prosecutrix was sitting in
the room with her 11 years old son (PW3), three of the ac- F
cused came and forcibly dragged her out of the room.
., . Thereafter three of the other accused joined them and
forcibly carried the prosecutrix to a nearby forest. One
old lady (PW 4) unsuccessfully tried to rescue her. On
being telephonically informed, the Police reached the for- G
est and overpowered three of the accused. In Test Identi-
fication Parade, the Prosecutrix identified appellant-ac..;
cused and other four accused.
Trial Court held that the Test Identification was non-
1019 H
~
I

1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.
'I

A existent in the eye of law, because it WpS accepted by the ......
prosecutrix that she had been shown the accused be-
fore the Tl Parade. However, relying on the evidence of ~
~
Prosecutrix (PW1), PW3 and PW4, trial court convicted
five of the six accused (including the appellant-accused) f=
B for the offences charged. High Court confirmed the trial
court judgment dismissing the appeal filed by the appel-
:.__
·lant:
In appeal to this Court, appelJant contended that he
y ·~

was not liable to be convicted as Tl Parade was not exis- t
c tent in the eye of law; that he was not caught by the po-
lice from the place of occurrence; and that it could not be
the ground to hold the appellant guilty merely because
accused were addressing each other by names, without
showing that he was the person whose name was uttered
D by the co-accused. r
Allowing the appeal, the Court )( <--
..,,_
HELD: 1.1 No evidence was led to show the pres-
ence of the appellant at the spot of occurrence or to have
L
E participated in the crime. That being so, the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove the accusations so far as
the appellant is con.cerned. He is acquitted of the charges.
[Para 8] (1025-A)
1.2 It is not disputed by the State that unlike some
F other accused, the appellant was not caught at the place
\
of occurrence. The Trial Court had itself held that there ...
was no Test Identification Parade in the eye of law. There-
}::
fore, identification of the appellant for the first time in court
was really of no consequence. Added to that, the only r-
G evidence pressed into service by the prosecution so far ~

as the appellant is concerned, was that his name was simi-
lar to one of the names which the accused persons were "i'""
addressing each other, as stated by the prosecutrix. That
cannot be, by any stretch of imagination, an incriminat-
H ing material. [Para 7] (1024-F, G, H)

.
SONU KUM?.R v. STATE OF H.P. 1021

CRlMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal A
No. 1660 of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 29.3.2007 of
the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Crl. Appeal
No. 413 of 2003
B
Jagjit Singh Chhabra (A.C.) Tatini Basu and Sudhir
Nandrajog for the Appellant.
y
Naresh K. Sharma for the Respondent.

. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissing the ap-
peal filed by the appellant questioning the conviction for offence
D
punishable under Sections 452, 323 read with Section 34 and
,;. Section 376(2)(9) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the
'IPC').
3. By a common judgment five appeals preferred by the
accused persons were disposed of. The accused persons were E
found guilty of offence punishable under the aforesaid offences
by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala.

4. The prosecution versions during trial is as follows:

The prosecutrix, aged 32 years, was married to a man, F
,. J who was employed at a butcher's shop at Baijnath. Her hus-
band fell ill and was perhaps rendered incapable of doing the
job with the butcher. The prosecutrix approached the butcher
for employing her son, who was then aged just eleven years, for
doing odd jobs. The butcher offered to employ her son for graz-
<;;
ing his sheep and goats on monthly salary of Rs.700/-. On
-,- 3.6.2002 the prosecutrix took her son to the butcher's shop at
Baijnath with the intention of leaving him there. Her son was
required to take the sheep and goats to the forest, by the em-
player, immediately after they reached. The prosecutrix accom-
H
1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A panied her son to the forest. They returned with the herd in the
evening. By then the last bus going .towards the village of the
prosecutrix, had already left. The butcher offered that she could
stay with her son in the upper storey of the shop for the night.
She accepted the offer. Around 9.30 p.m., when the prosecutrix
B and her son were sitting in the room on the upper storey of the
shop of the butcher, accused Kamlesh, Arjun Singh and Suresh
Kumar went there. They forcibly dragged the prosecutrix out of
that room and when,they reached the ground floor of the struc-
ture, two other persons, appellants, Bal Kishan and Sonu joined
C them. One more person, named Chuni Lal, who too was tried
along with the appellants, also joined them. The prosecutrixwas
forcibly carried to a near forest. She cried for help. One old
lady, living nearby intervened, but she could not get her released.
The son of the prosecutrix got so scared that he climbed a truck
parked nearby and hid himself in the tool-box. Someone in-
D formed the police telephonically. Soon the police reached the
forest and over-powered two of the appellants, namely, Kamlesh
and Suresh and the sixth accomplice of the appellants, named
Chuni lal (who stands acquitted by the Trial Court), when they
tried to flee from the spot on seeing the police. Statement of the
E prosecutrix was recorded by HC Pawan Sharma, heading th~
police party that reached the spot. The prosecutrix besides nar-
rating the details about her visit to Baijnath and having gone to
tl"le _ypper storey of the shop of the butcher for night stay and
having then been dragged and taken to the forest in the manner
F as summarized hereinabove, stated that those who committed
the rape, were calling each other by the names of Bal Kishan,
Arjun, Sonu, Kamlesh etc.
Police investigated the matter and filed the case against
G the six accused persons. The trial Court charged all the six for
offences punishable under Sections 452 read with Section 34,
323 read with Secftion 34, 376(2)(g) of IPC and Section 3(x) of
the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atroci-
ties) Act. ....... (in short 'SC.ST Act') because the prosecutrix
was alleged to belong to a scheduled caste. All the accused
H
SONU KUMAR v. STATE OF H.P. 1023
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J]

pleaded not guilty to the charge. The Trial Court then proceeded A
to try the case and ultimately convicted and sentenced the five
accused persons as aforesaid, but acquitted their sixth accom-
plice.
Appellants' plea was that they were not involved in the crime
B
., and have been implicated just on suspicion. Learn~d counsel,
representing the appellants, argued that there is no evidence
on record establishing the identity of the appellants as the per-
petrators of the crime.
Prosecution examined the prosecutrix as PW-1, her son c
Onkar Chand as PW-3, an old woman, named Gitan Devi, PW-
4, who allegedly tried to get the prosecutrix rescued from the
accused persons, D.R. Thakur, PW-7, the then Judicial Magis-
trate Baijnath, who conducted the test identification parade,
police Head Constable Pawan Sharma, PW-15, who on the
D
'!. receipt of telephonic information at the police station about the
incident went to the spot and over-powered three of the alleged
rapists on the spot and recorded the statement of the prosecu-
trix, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(in short 'Cr.P.C.'), and ASI Chain Lal, PW-16 and Dy. S.P.
Prittam Singh, PW-18, who conducted the investigation of the E
case. The police also examined lady doctor named, Bindu
Sood, PW-19, who conducted the medico legal examination of
the prosecutrix and Dr. S.K. Sood, PW-2, who medically exam-
ined the accused persons with a view to ascertaining whether
; there were any injury marks on their persons and whether they F
't
were capable of performing sexual intercourse. All the accused
persons took the plea of denial simpliciter and claimed that they
were innocent and had been falsely implicated at the behest of
the police.
G
The Trial Court placed reliance on the evidence of the wit-
~·
nesses i.e. prosecutrix PW-1, her son PW-3 and an old women
PW-4. The Trial Court, however, found that the so called test
identification parade conducted by the then Judicial Magistrate,
Baijnath PW-7 did not meet the requirements of law and had
H
1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A no evidentiary value. It was noted that the prosecutrix in the wit-
ness box had stated that she had identified five boys at the
police station on 4.6.2002. It was accept~d by her that she had
been shown the accused persons by the police before identifi-
cation.
B Primary stand before the High Court taken by the appellant
was that there was no evidence so far as his involvement is con-
cerned. He was not apprehended at the spot unlike some other
accused persons. The prosecutrix did not know him and had clearly
accepted this fact. She only stated that the accused persons were
C addressing each other by some names and that is how she claimed
to know the names of the accused persons. The High Court did
not find any substance in this plea and as noted above dismissed
the appellants' appeal along with other appeals.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there
0
was no material to link the accused with the alleged crime. The
Trial Court held that there was no test identification parade in
the eye of law and this view was affirmed by the High Court.
Merely because the accused persons purportedly addressing
each other by names that cannot be a ground to hold the appel-
E lant guilty without any material to show that he was the person
whose name was being uttered by the co-accused persons.
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand sup-
ported the judgment of the Trial Court and the High Court.
F 7. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the State that A,
unlike some others the appellant was not caught at the place of · ~
occurrence. The Trial Court had itself held that there was no
test identification parade in the eye of law. Therefore, identifi-
cation of the appellant for the first time in court was really of no
G consequence. Added to that, the only evidence pressed into
service by the prosecution so far as the appellant is concerned,
was thaChis name was similar to one of the names which the
accused persons were addressing each other, as stated by the
prosecutrix. That cannot be by any stretch of imagination an
H incriminating material.
SONU KUMAR 11. STATE OF H.P. 1025
[DR. ARIJIT Pf\SAYAT, J)

8. No evidence was led to show the presence of the ap- A
pellant at the spot of occurrence or to have participated in the
crime. That being so, the prosecution has miserably failed to
prove the accusations so far as the appellant is concerned. He
is acquitted of the charges. He shall be released forthwith from
custody unless required to be in custody in connection with any B
other case.
9. The appeal is allowed.
K.K.T. Appeal allowed.