Holding

The High Court's assessment of the witnesses' credibility was proper and not liable to interference, so the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The State appealed the acquittal of Sait & Krishnakumar, who had been convicted by a Sessions Court of murder (IPC s.302) and robbery (IPC s.392 r/w s.397) based on the testimony of prosecution witnesses PW‑1 to PW‑3 and PW‑8. The High Court set aside the conviction, holding that PW‑1, PW‑2 and PW‑3 had seen the accused’s photographs and read their names in the newspaper before the test identification parade, rendering their identification unreliable, and that PW‑8’s testimony was inconsistent and lacked credibility. The State argued that the High Court erred in disbelieving the witnesses, while the accused supported the High Court’s decision. The Supreme Court examined the evidential findings and concluded that the High Court had properly analysed the material and that its view was not perverse or untenable. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, leaving the acquittal intact.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court erred in disbelieving the prosecution witnesses who had prior exposure to photographs and newspaper reports before the identification parade.
Whether the testimony of PW‑8 was reliable enough to sustain a conviction.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34, s. 392, s. 397

Subjects

identification paradewitness credibilityacquittalIPC s.302IPC s.392IPC s.397criminal appealevidence reliability

Judgment

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 120

("
A STATE, REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
TAMILNADU
v.
SAIT & KRISHNAKUMAR
(Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2002)
-
B OCTOBER 1, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM \-
SHARMA, JJ]

c Penal Code, 1860 - s, 302 and s. 392 rlw s. - Conviction
- Acquittal by High Court finding the evidence not .cogent and
credible - Interference with - Held: Not called for since High
Court had analysed the evidence - Three of the prosecution
witnesses saw photographs and read name of accused from
the newspaper prior to test identification parade - Evidence of
D
other prosecution witness Jacked reliability - Evidence - Test ~
I
Identification Parade.
Respondent was tried for offences punishable u/s.
392 r/w s. 397 IPC. Trial court, relying on the evidence of
E PWs 1 to 3 and 8, convicted and sentenced the respon-
dent u/s. 302 and u/s. 392 r/w s. 397 IPC. However, High
Court found the evidence to be not cogent and credible
and acquitted the respondent. Hence the appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court }
F
HELD: The High Court found that that PWs 1 to 3
had occasion to see the photographs and read the name
of the accused from the newspaper prior to the test iden-
tification parade. So far as PW-8 is concerned, the High
Court found that his evidence was at variance with that
G
of PWs 1 and 2 and had also lacked reliability. He claimed
;..
to be a person who had seen the accused after some time
of the incident with a blood stained knife. But his con-
duct was found to be unnatural. If he was the only person
H 120 )

;,
I
STATE, REPRETD. BY INSP. OF POLICE, TAMILNADU 121
v. SAIT & KRISHNAKUMAR
:")
to have seen the accused from close quarters, it was not A
explained why he did not say so during investigation. Such
a version for the first time in Court has been rightly dis-
carded by the High Court. The view taken by the High
Court after analyzing the evidence ca!'lnot be said to be a
view which is not possible to be taken. Thus, the appeal B
_,.. is not interfered with. [Paras 4, 7 and 8] [122-C; 123-A;
122-D,E; 123-B]
~

CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 70 of 2002
c
From the final Judgment and Order dated 16.11.2000 of
the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.
205 of 1991
S. Thananjayan forthsAppellant.
I D
K.V. Viswanathan, 8. Ragunath, K.V. Venkataraman and
.,, K.V. Vijayakumar for the Respondents .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for
the parties. E

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
Bench of the Madras High Court directing acquittal of the re-
spondent. The Trial Court, i.e. the Court of Sessions, Coimbatore
." had found the respondent guilty of offence punishable under F
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC').
It is to be noted that four persons, including the respondent were
tried fqr-2-offences punishable under Section 302 read with
Section 34 IPC, Section 392 IPC and Section 392 read with
Section 397 IPC. The present respondent, i.e. A-1 was tried for
G
::. offences punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397
IPC and A-2 to A-4 were tried for offences punishable under
Section 392 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge found the re-
spondent guilty of offences punishable under Section 302 as
well as for offences punishable under Section 392 read with
H
122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

~ !
A Section 397 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment I

for life and seven years rigorous imprisonment for the latter of-
fence. The High Court found the evidence to be not cogent and
credible and directed acquittal. t
3. Prosecution version primarily rested on the evidence of PWs iI
B 1 to 3 and PW-8. The trial court placed· reliance on the evidence of
such witnesses and directed conviction, as recorded above.
' _.,,_
, '
~
4. The High Court found that it was an accepted position,
'
as conceded by PWs 1 and 2 that they had seen the photo- ~
c graphs and read the names of the accused in the newspaper
prior to the test identification parade. On that-3-ground, the High
l
Court disbelieved the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. So far as PW- t
I
3 is concerned, the High Court found that his version to have
only read the name of the accused in the newspaper and not to
have seen the photographs,. was not believable. Accordingly,
D '~
PWs 1 to 3 were disbelieved. The residual question was the
\
reliability of the evidence tendered by PW-8. Here again, the _,.
High Court found that his version lacked credence. He claimed
to be a person who had seen the accused after some time of
the incident with a blood stained knife. But his conduct was found
E to be unnatural. If he was the only person to have seen the ac-
cused from close quarters, it was not explained why he did not
say so during investigation. Such a version for the first time in
Court has been rightly discarded by the High Court. Therefore,
the High Court directed acquittal, as noted above.
F I
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that .,..
even if there was some scope for doubting the evidence of PWs
1 and 2, so far as PW-3 and PW-8 are concerned, a different
yardstick had to be applied.
G 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-accused supported
the judgment of the High Court. ,.i;

7. We find that so far as PWs 1 to 3 are concerned, the
High Court found that they had occasion to see the photographs
and read the name of the accused from the newspaper prior to
H
STATE, REPRETD. BY INSP OF POLICE, TAMILNADU 123
v. SAIT & KRISHNAKUMAR [Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

the test identification parade. So far as PW-8 is concerned, the A
High Court found that his evidence was at variance with that of
PWs 1 and 2 and had also lacked reliability.
8. The view taken by the High Court after analysing the
evidence cannot be said to be a view which is not possible to
be taken. B
_,, 9. That being so, we are not inclined to interfere in this
appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.
N.J. Appeal dismissed.

i

I