Summary
The trial acquittal was restored because the prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s identity and participation beyond reasonable doubt. He was a stranger to the eyewitnesses, no identification parade or prior physical description supported their dock identification, and the manner of strangulation described conflicted with medical findings. The High Court conviction was set aside as against him alone.
Issues
- Whether eyewitness and medical evidence reliably established the appellant’s participation.
- What weight attached to first-time courtroom identification of a stranger without an identification parade.
- Whether unexplained apprehension and absence of a prior description created reasonable doubt.
Held
- Homicidal death by strangulation was established, but the disputed question was who committed it. The alleged manner of pulling a cloth around the neck was inconsistent with the absence of ligature marks at its back, and the bed’s position also made the described attack improbable. The first doctor to examine the deceased was not called. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 18)
- An identification parade is investigative rather than substantive evidence, and its absence is not automatically fatal. Nevertheless, first-time courtroom identification of an accused previously unknown to the witnesses is inherently weak and ordinarily calls for corroboration. Here neither the FIR nor the investigation statements provided a physical description of the appellant. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- The appellant’s name was allegedly learnt only when the known co-accused called it while fleeing. Several persons of that name lived in the locality. Police did not explain the basis of apprehending this appellant, and the arrest lacked an independent witness and arrest memo. These circumstances left his identification doubtful. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- The timing and circumstances of the principal witness’s return, the doubtful account of the assault and the medical contradiction cumulatively prevented proof beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court’s acquittal was restored as against this appellant, who received the benefit of doubt. (¶¶ 14, 18, 19)
- As the appellant was already on bail, he need not surrender. His bail bonds and sureties were discharged. The order was confined to his conviction. (¶ 19)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court conviction set aside as against the appellant and trial acquittal restored. No surrender required; bail bonds and sureties discharged.