Identification of accused by eyewitness unknown to him in court without test Identification parade not credible: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted a murder convict after finding that the prosecution case was not reliable and the testimonies of eyewitnesses were not credible.

Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said the eyewitness account, which is unknown to the suspect, is not credible if he directly identified him in court, without prior test identification parade. The court also said that the witness must have described the suspect’s main characteristics before giving evidence to the police.

These observations were made while hearing an appeal against Kuldeep Singh’s conviction under Sections 302 and 392 IPC in a murder case and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2013.

According to the prosecution, appellant Kuldeep Singh along with another co-accused committed murder of Bhagwan Singh in the fields and ran away on his motorcycle.

After examining the documents submitted, the Court ruled that the prosecution was questionable. The court noted that the alleged eyewitness had stated to the investigating officer that the suspect was clean-shaven, but so did “inadequate descriptions of the otherwise required physical characteristics of the suspect, which were unique to them alone.”

It opined that the police should have conducted a test identification parade to establish the identity of the suspect.

“Nevertheless, the prosecution witness…identified the accused in court, and without any prior valid test identification parade being held, there followed the first identification in court by the witness…of the accused-appellants, but it clearly appears to be an extremely weak identification,” the court said.

Moreover, the Court held that the witness is not credible because he had stated that he was informed by an electrician named Darshan Singh that his deceased cousin was injured by the accused but failed to call the said electrician as a witness .

“However, since the prosecutrix has failed to name the said Darshan Singh as a witness for the prosecutrix nor has he made him step into the witness box, the omission (supra) on the part of the prosecutrix has thus caused a serious dent in the eyes of the prosecutor. considering the veracity of the statement of PW-2 Reema Singh. As a result, no credit can be given to the statement of PW-2 Reema Singh.

Justice Sureshwar Thakur, speaking for the court, also highlighted that the 315 pistol along with live cartridges was allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused concerned and was never sent to the ballistic expert for advice. “Thus, failure to send the recovered .315 bore pistol along with the active cartridges to the ballistic expert is critical,” the bench added.

In view of the foregoing, the court annulled the judgment and declared the appeal well-founded.

Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

Title: Kuldeep Singh @ Keepa and another against Punjab State

Click here to read/download the order