Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

Failure to Conduct TIP Without Magistrate Permission is Fatal: Supreme Court Acquits Man in High-Profile Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


High Court's decision affirming trial court’s conviction under Section 302 IPC and other offenses reversed due to unreliable identification evidence.

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has acquitted P. Sasikumar, the appellant in a notorious murder case, reversing the conviction upheld by the High Court of Madras. The bench, comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B. Varale, emphasized the critical role of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) in ensuring the reliability of witness identification, which was notably absent in this case.

The case pertains to the brutal murder of a 14-year-old girl in Salem, Tamil Nadu, on the night of November 13, 2014. The appellant, P. Sasikumar, and another accused were alleged to have killed the girl inside her house. The prosecution's case was largely circumstantial, relying on the testimony of witnesses and forensic evidence. The FIR was lodged by the victim's father, Durairaj (PW-1), who discovered his daughter bleeding profusely from her neck upon returning home. The girl was declared dead at the hospital due to the severity of her injuries.

The police arrested the accused on November 15, 2014, and recovered incriminating items. However, the High Court noted several investigative lapses, particularly the failure to conduct a TIP.

The Supreme Court's primary concern was the identification of the appellant, which hinged on witness testimonies from PW-1 and PW-5. Both witnesses had seen the appellant on the day of the crime wearing a green monkey cap, which obscured most of his face. The Court highlighted the necessity of a TIP in such scenarios where the accused is a stranger to the witnesses and the identification in court is the first instance of recognition.

The bench criticized the investigation for not seeking the magistrate’s permission for a TIP, which is crucial when witnesses are identifying a stranger. The Court cited the case of Kunjumon v. State of Kerala, underscoring the importance of TIP in bolstering the credibility of witness identification.

The Supreme Court concluded that the lack of a TIP rendered the dock identification by PW-1 and PW-5 unreliable. "Doubt always belongs to the accused," the judgment stated, reflecting the principle that in criminal law, the benefit of the doubt must favor the defendant. The Court emphasized that in the absence of a TIP, the prosecution had failed to establish the appellant’s identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia remarked, "The prosecution has not been able to prove the identity of the present appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The relevance of a TIP is well-settled and crucial in cases where the accused is a stranger to the witness."

The Supreme Court's judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring rigorous adherence to procedural safeguards in criminal investigations. The acquittal of P. Sasikumar, after nearly eight years of imprisonment, highlights the critical importance of reliable identification processes in upholding justice. This landmark decision is expected to influence future cases, reinforcing the necessity for meticulous and lawful investigative practices.

 

Date of Decision: July 8, 2024

Sasikumar vs. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

 

Similar News