Murder -Test Identification Parade (TIP) - non-essential appellant known to the eyewitness-SC

Balu Mandpe was attacked with sharp edged weapons such as sword, knives, khanjar and farsa by a group of 10/12 persons. Balu sustained grievous injuries and died in hospital from his injuries. Complaint was registered u/s 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Nine accused, including the appellant Lala @ Anurag Prakash Aasre faced trial in the Sessions Trial no. 232/2009. The learned Session Judge concluded that the accused had formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing the death of Balu MWe are constrained to note on few errors (typographical or otherwise) with regard to witness statements and supplementary statements. The confusion created by multiple versions of statements and depositions in the projection of either side is compelling us to reiterate the necessity of referring to Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, 2021. The key issue to be decided is whether the appellant was identified as the person wielding the sword who gave the sword blow to the Informant (PW1) and also to the deceased Balu Mandpe. It is plausible that the accused with the alias Lala could be referred by the witnesses as 'Lalya'. Identification tests do not constitute substantive evidence. They are primarily meant for the purpose of helping the investigating agency with assurance that their progress with the investigation into the offence is proceeding on the right lines. The necessity for an identification parade can arise only when the accused are not previously known to the witnesses. The TIP was rendered non-essential as the appellant was known to the eyewitnesses and he was identified both by name and appearance. The identification tests 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 is proceeding on the right lines . 

In the result of the above finding, we find no grounds to interfere with the impugnment judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. The State may consider the case of the appellant for remission at an appropriate stage, on its own merits. It is ordered accordingly.

24 August, 2021

LALA @ ANURAG PRAKASH AASRE  VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA