Identification After 45 Days and Exposure to Photographs Renders the Test Identification Parade Meaningless: Madras High Court Acquits Robbery Accused

“Doubt Is a Shield, Not a Defect”, Madras High Court set aside the conviction of two men for robbery and attempted murder, holding that the identification of the accused was highly doubtful, the investigation suffered from glaring procedural lapses, and that the petitioners were denied the benefit of parity, even though similarly placed co-accused had already been acquitted. Justice M. Nirmal Kumar, delivering the verdict, observed: “When others similarly situated have been given the benefit of doubt, denying the same to these petitioners amounts to discrimination.”

“Identification After 45 Days and Exposure to Photographs Renders the Test Identification Parade Meaningless”

The petitioners, Babu @ Nagababu and Thiyagu (A1 & A3), had been convicted under Sections 394 and 397 IPC for allegedly stabbing and robbing two employees of ₹16 lakhs near Hosur. Though the trial court sentenced them to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment, and the appellate court confirmed the conviction, the High Court revisited the evidence and found it deeply flawed. The Court found that the Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted 45 days after arrest, and after the witnesses had seen the accused’s photographs, undermining its evidentiary value. The Court noted, “PW1 admits the names and photographs of A1 and A3 were shown to him before the TIP. Such prior exposure casts a long shadow of doubt on the fairness of the identification process.”

The Court found further support in the Supreme Court decision in Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1155, which emphasized that “where identical roles and evidence exist, the principle of parity demands similar treatment.”

“Conviction Cannot Survive When Evidence Shifts Like Sand” – Court Criticizes Contradictory Testimonies and Missing Proof

The Court closely scrutinized the testimony of PW1 and PW2, the injured eyewitnesses, and found contradictions not only between their versions but also with the medical records and other supporting evidence. Despite the gravity of the alleged offence – a night-time robbery involving stabbings – the Doctor (PW6) did not confirm any injuries from chilli powder allegedly used during the attack. The High Court pointed out: “Not a whisper in the medical records suggests presence of chilli powder or any eye irritation. This seriously questions the credibility of the narrative.”

The prosecution failed to call Praveen, who allegedly brought the victims to the hospital, and there were discrepancies in who actually transported the injured, as names in hospital registers did not match the claims made in court. The scene of occurrence also came under cloud, with differing accounts of where the attack actually happened—near a house or the Dharga Bus Stand.

“Stock Witnesses and Staged Recoveries Erode Credibility of Investigation”

Even the recovery of money and weapons failed to withstand scrutiny. The Court found that the recoveries were made in the presence of PW7 and PW8, who admitted to being routinely used as witnesses by police, thus acting as “stock witnesses”. Moreover, all confession statements were computer typed at the scene, which the Investigating Officer claimed was done using a laptop and mobile printer—a claim the Court found to be “unsubstantiated and conveniently introduced for the first time during trial.”

The supposed landlord Rajendran, in whose house the accused were arrested, was never examined, and no independent witness from the neighborhood was called to corroborate the arrest or recovery.

The Court concluded that “the entire arrest and recovery narrative appears artificial and lacks the ring of truth.”

“Principle of Parity Cannot Be an Afterthought” – Discrimination Between Accused Not Justified

Perhaps most crucially, the Court held that the petitioners were in no different position than the co-accused A2 and A4–A8, who were acquitted by the trial court and whose acquittal had been confirmed by the appellate court. Citing paragraph 15 of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi, the High Court held that “when there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused… the Court cannot convict one and acquit the other.”

The Court criticized the lower appellate court for accepting the trial court’s reasoning in acquitting others but failing to extend the benefit of doubt to the petitioners, despite acknowledging they were similarly placed.

Conclusion: Doubt, Discrepancy and Discrimination – A Conviction Unsustainable in Law

Ultimately, the High Court allowed the criminal revision, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the petitioners, ordering that they be released forthwith unless required in any other case. The fine, if paid, was directed to be refunded, and bail bonds were ordered to be cancelled.

The judgment stands as a reiteration that criminal convictions cannot rest on vague identification, procedural irregularities, and selective reasoning. As the Court aptly held: “Criminal law must be even-handed. Where reasonable doubt exists, it must benefit all, not just a few.”

Date of Decision: 18 November 2025