Flawed Test Identification Parade Does Not Weaken In-Court Identification: Kerala High Court Upholds Life Sentence in Murder-for-Gain Case

Witnesses Had Ample Opportunity to Observe the Accused; Identification Parade is Not the Sole Basis for Conviction – In a landmark ruling Kerala High Court upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of four accused in a brutal murder-for-gain case, rejecting their appeal against the Additional Sessions Court-I, Thalassery's verdict. The Court ruled that even though the test identification parade (TIP) was flawed due to procedural lapses, the in-court identification by eyewitnesses remained valid, as they had sufficient opportunity to observe the accused during the crime.

"A defective test identification parade does not automatically render in-court identification unreliable. If the witness had ample opportunity to recognize the accused, the testimony remains legally sound," the Court held while dismissing the appeals filed by Rintu @ Thoofan Pradhan, Ganesh Naik @ Goniya, Bappuna @ Rajesh Behra, and Chintu @ Prasanth Sethi.

The ruling reinforces the evidentiary value of in-court identification, particularly when it is corroborated by direct witness testimony, CCTV footage, and the recovery of stolen property from the accused.

"A Murder Fueled by Revenge and Greed: How the Accused Killed Their Former Employer"
The case involved the murder of Prabhakardas, a businessman from Odisha residing in Kannur, Kerala, who was stabbed to death inside his rented house on May 19, 2018. The attackers were his former employees, who conspired to kill him and rob his family after he dismissed one of them for theft.

The prosecution presented a chilling sequence of events, establishing that the accused:

•    Forcibly entered the house, restrained Prabhakardas, and assaulted his wife while attempting to rob her jewelry.
•    Tied up Prabhakardas and stabbed him multiple times when he resisted, inflicting fatal injuries.
•    Escaped after looting gold ornaments, ₹80,000 in cash, and mobile phones.

The deceased’s wife and minor daughter witnessed the crime and later identified the accused in court. Their testimony was corroborated by CCTV footage, forensic evidence, and the recovery of stolen items from the accused.

"This was a meticulously planned murder committed with premeditation and extreme brutality. The accused, who once worked for the victim, exploited his trust and killed him for financial gain," the prosecution argued.

"Does a Flawed Test Identification Parade Render Identification Unreliable? High Court Says No"
The defense argued that the identification of the accused was unreliable, as the witnesses had never seen them before and the test identification parade was vitiated. They claimed that since the investigating officers showed CCTV footage to the witnesses before the TIP, their memory was tainted, making the identification unreliable.

Rejecting this contention, the High Court ruled that even if the TIP was procedurally flawed, the in-court identification remained valid.

"The value of a witness’s identification depends on the circumstances of the case. Here, the witnesses had direct confrontation with the accused for a considerable time, ensuring that their recollection remained intact," the Court observed.

The judgment cited State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Rayappa (2006) 4 SCC 512, where the Supreme Court ruled that witness testimony must be evaluated based on their ability to observe the crime, not just on procedural correctness of a TIP.

"Possession of Stolen Property Strengthens the Case Against the Accused"

The convicts were arrested in Odisha, where stolen gold ornaments, mobile phones, and silver items were recovered from them. The prosecution relied on the presumption under Section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act, which states that possession of stolen property soon after a crime creates a presumption that the person in possession was involved in the offense.

"The accused failed to provide any explanation for how they came into possession of the stolen valuables. Their silence only strengthens the prosecution’s case," the Court ruled.

Although the Court disregarded the accused’s confession statements leading to the recovery, citing procedural lapses, it held that their physical possession of stolen property was an undeniable link to the crime.

"Even if confessions are inadmissible, the independent recovery of stolen items remains a crucial piece of evidence," the Court stated.

"Claim of Unfair Trial Due to Language Barrier Rejected"

The defense argued that the accused, being from Odisha, did not understand Malayalam, making the trial unfair. They contended that the framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 313 CrPC were conducted in a language they did not comprehend.

The High Court dismissed this claim, noting that:

•    The accused had access to a translator who explained proceedings to them in Hindi.
•    Section 313 statements were read out in Hindi before being recorded.
•    No objections regarding the language issue were raised during the trial.
"A fair trial does not mean an accused can raise objections after conviction if they failed to do so during the proceedings. The defense cannot use procedural technicalities to escape a well-founded conviction," the Court ruled, citing Shivanarayan Kabra v. State of Madras (AIR 1967 SC 986).

"Life Sentence Upheld: Heinous Nature of Crime Leaves No Scope for Leniency"

The High Court upheld the life imprisonment awarded by the trial court, rejecting the appeal for a reduced sentence. The Court reaffirmed that: "This was a premeditated murder, executed with cruelty and a clear motive for financial gain. There is no justification for leniency in sentencing."

All sentences imposed by the trial court, including life imprisonment for murder and robbery with murder, would run concurrently.

"Justice demands that crimes of such severity are met with the strictest punishment. The rule of law cannot allow violent offenders to escape with lighter sentences," the Court concluded.

"Test Identification Parade Not Always Determinative; In-Court Identification and Circumstantial Evidence Are Sufficient": Kerala High Court Lays Down Precedent

This ruling reinforces several key principles of criminal jurisprudence: "A test identification parade is not the sole factor in establishing an accused’s identity. When witnesses have had sufficient opportunity to observe the perpetrators, in-court identification is valid. Possession of stolen property creates a strong presumption of guilt, and procedural claims raised after conviction cannot defeat substantial justice."

By ensuring that technicalities do not derail justice, the Kerala High Court has set a significant precedent affirming the role of eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence in securing convictions for violent crimes.

Date of Decision: 25 February 2025