If the accused's name in the FIR is silent, the prosecution case cannot be thrown when other reliable evidences are available against the accused - Supreme Court.

 

Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Hrishikesh Roy dismissed the appeal of the Appellant and upheld the decision of the Trial Court and the High Court of Judicature at Bombay wherein the Appellant alongwith other accused was convicted of offence under Sections 302, 120B, 147, 148 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code in the charge of murdering one Balu Mandpe with sharp and dangerous weapons like sword and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

The main contention of the appellant against the decision of the Trial Court and the High Court is that the injured informant had not named the appellant in the FIR and he was not amongst the six named accused. The prosecution had not arranged for the Test Identification Parade (TIP) and the identity of the appellant is not clearly established as one of the not named persons involved in the assault.

On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the State contends that the appellant was specifically named by the informant in the supplementary statement recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P C  and that involvement of the appellant as assailant is beyond  doubt as he was identified by all the witnesses and there was no necessity to conduct a Test Identification Parade for the appellant.

                Now it is imperative to note here that the Apex Court, applying the judicial mind, relied heavily on the available materials on records in support of the contention of the State’s counsel. The court took note all the testimonies of the witnesses, relevant materials i.e. FIR that describes the physical description of the accused/appellant as well as the supplementary statements submitted by informant that identifies the appellant by name. The appellant was identified by all the witnesses.

                The  S.C negated the contention of the appellant and opined -  

“ The FIR is certainly the starting point of the investigation, but it is well within the rights of the prosecution to produce witness statements as they progress further into the investigation and unearth the specific roles of accused persons. The FIR as is known, only sets the investigative machinery, into motion”.

Therefore just because the name of the appellant is silent in the FIR, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out, as other reliable evidences are available in the case – Supreme Court said.

The court observed that  the two courts have concurrently concluded that appellant’s name not being specifically mentioned in the FIR, would not justify his acquittal as he was specifically identified by other prosecution witnesses and TIP not being conducted, was held to be immaterial.

Regarding the absence of TIP as contended by the appellant, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was inclined to agree with the State’s counsel  that the Test Identification Parade  was unnecessary in the present case as the identity of the appellant was known to the eye witnesses and he was specifically  identified both by name and appearance. Therefore failure to conduct the TIP for the Appellant  will not vitiate his conviction.

               The Court thought deemed fit to refer to the nature and weightage  attached to the evidentiary value of TIP  by referring Munshi Singh Gautam vs. State of M.P. (2005). This court relied on the case of Matru vs. State of U.P. (1971) wherein it was held –

                                                                                                                                                                                       “The identification do not constitute substantive evidence . They are primarily  meant for the purpose of helping the investigating agency with an assurance that their progress with the  investigation into the offence is proceeding on the right lines. The identification can only be used as corroborative of the statement in court. The necessity for holding an identification parade can arise only when the accused are not previously known to the witnesses…………….”

                                                      

 “………………….The identification parades belong to the stage of investigation, and there is no provision in the Code which obliges the investigating agency to hold or confers a right upon the accused to claim, a test identification parade. They do not constitute substantive evidence and these parades are essentially governed by Section 162 of the Code. Failure 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. In appropriate cases it may accept the evidence of identification even without insisting on corroboration.”

 

Therefore on the facts available on record, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India see no reason to interfere with the judgement of the court below because the identity of  the appellant  as one of the assailant members and his specific role in the assault is established beyond doubt.

 

Case:  Lala @ Anurag Prakash Aasre Vs. The State Of Maharashtra

Date of Judgement: 24.08.2021.