Courts Must Not Act as Subject Experts: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Challenge to PGT Chemistry Answer Key Objection to Territorial Jurisdiction Must Be Raised at the Earliest: Orissa High Court Dismisses Wife's Plea Against Jurisdiction Tenant Cannot Retain Possession Without Paying Rent: Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Eviction for Non-Payment Section 197 CrPC | Official Duty and Excessive Force Are Not Mutually Exclusive When Assessing Prosecution Sanction: Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Sub-Inspector Police Cannot Meddle in Religious Disputes Without Law and Order Concerns: Karnataka High Court Orders Inquiry Against Inspector for Interference in Mutt Property Dispute Taxpayer Cannot Be Denied Compensation for Unauthorized Retention of Funds: Gujarat High Court Orders Interest on Delayed Refund Settlement Reached in Conciliation Has the Force of an Arbitral Award: Delhi High Court Rejects Plea for Arbitration Calcutta High Court Slams Eastern Coalfields Limited, Orders Immediate Employment for Deceased Worker’s Widow Suit for Declaration That No Marriage Exists is Maintainable: Bombay High Court Rejects Plea to Dismiss Negative Declaration Claim Tearing Pages of a Religious Book in a Live Debate is a Prima Facie Malicious Act: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea to Quash FIR Unexplained Delay, Contradictory Testimony, and Lack of Medical Evidence Cannot Sustain a Conviction: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Rape Case Weaponizing Criminal Law in Matrimonial Disputes is Abuse of Process: Supreme Court Quashed Complaint Stamp Duty Exemption Applies When Property Transfer Is Part of Court-Ordered Divorce Settlement: Supreme Court A Court Cannot Deny Just Maintenance Merely Because the Applicant Claimed Less: Orissa High Court Upholds ₹10,000 Monthly Support for Elderly Wife Punjab and Haryana High Court Rejects Land Acquisition Challenge, Cites "Delay and Laches" as Key Factors Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification Proved Beyond Doubt: Kerala High Court Affirms Conviction in Bribery Case Violation of Decree Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Application Under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC Ensuring Teacher Attendance Through Technology is Not Arbitrary, But Privacy of Female Teachers Must Be Protected: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Circular Once a Mortgage is Permitted, Auction Sale Needs No Further NOC: Punjab & Haryana High Court Delay Defeats Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Petition for Appointment as PCS (Judicial) After 16-Year Delay Minor Signature Differences Due to Age and Health Do Not Void Will if Testamentary Capacity Established: Kerala High Court Criminal Investigation Cannot Be Stalled on Grounds of Political Conspiracy Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Refused to Quash FIR Against MLA Munirathna Family Courts Must Prioritize Justice Over Technicalities" – Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Closing Wife’s Right to Defend Divorce Case Fraud Vitiates Everything—Sale of Debuttar Property by Sole Shebait Cannot Stand: Calcutta High Court Reassessment Cannot Be Used to Reopen Settled Issues Without New Material – Bombay High Court Quashes ₹542 Crore Tax Demand on Tata Communications Repeated FIRs Against Multiple Accused Raise Serious Questions on Motive: Allahabad High Court Orders CBI Inquiry

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