Witness Identification in Court Without Prior Test Identification Parade Unreliable in Circumstantial Evidence Cases: Madras High Court

Madras High Court, in Raja @ Rajasekaran v. State (Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2019), acquitted the appellant, who had been convicted of double murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction, based on circumstantial evidence, was overturned due to the prosecution's failure to establish motive and the unreliability of the last seen theory. The Court ruled that the evidence did not conclusively link the accused to the crime, and extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant.

The appellant, Raja @ Rajasekaran, had been convicted by the II Additional District Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, in 2019 for the murders of Sathish and Manikandan. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, motivated by his alleged illicit relationship with Sathish's wife, Mahalakshmi, poisoned both victims using cyanide-laced alcohol. The trial court sentenced him to two life terms. Raja appealed the conviction, arguing that the evidence, particularly the circumstantial evidence, did not conclusively prove his guilt.

The prosecution relied on the testimony of Mahalakshmi (P.W.15) and her brother (P.W.16) to establish the motive—an alleged affair between the appellant and Mahalakshmi. However, both witnesses turned hostile during the trial, refusing to support the prosecution’s narrative. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to provide independent evidence of motive, which is critical in circumstantial evidence cases.

"Motive is an essential link in a chain of circumstantial evidence, and in its absence, the prosecution's case loses significant weight."

The prosecution’s case relied heavily on two witnesses, P.W.11 and P.W.12, who claimed to have seen the appellant with the deceased shortly before their deaths. However, both witnesses were closely related to the victims, raising concerns about their impartiality. Additionally, no test identification parade was conducted, which further weakened their testimonies. The Court deemed their identification of the accused unreliable and unsafe to base a conviction on.

"When a witness identifies an accused for the first time in court, without a prior test identification parade, their testimony becomes unreliable, especially in circumstantial evidence cases."

While the prosecution pointed to the recovery of cyanide and other material objects as evidence linking the appellant to the crime, the Court held that this was insufficient. The absence of a conclusive motive, unreliable eyewitness accounts, and incomplete circumstantial evidence meant the prosecution failed to meet the high burden of proof required in such cases.

"The chain of evidence must be complete and consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused's guilt. In this case, the prosecution failed to exclude every possible hypothesis of innocence."

The Division Bench of Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice C. Kumarappan analyzed the prosecution’s case and found significant gaps in the evidence:

Motive Not Established: The key witnesses for proving motive turned hostile, and no independent evidence was presented to support the allegation of an affair between the appellant and Mahalakshmi.

Unreliable Last Seen Theory: The Court found the testimonies of P.W.11 and P.W.12 to be unreliable due to their close relationship with the victims and the lack of a proper identification process.

Recovery of Cyanide Insufficient: Though cyanide was recovered, it did not conclusively establish the appellant’s guilt without the support of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.

Given these findings, the Court extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered his immediate release unless required in connection with another case.

The Madras High Court’s decision emphasizes the stringent standards required to secure a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. The judgment underscores the importance of establishing a complete chain of evidence, especially in serious cases like murder, where the absence of motive and unreliable eyewitness testimony can lead to acquittal.

Date of Decision: September 20, 2024