Summary
The Court upheld convictions arising from a violent dacoity on the reliable identification of five injured eyewitnesses. Their close contact with the assailants afforded an enduring opportunity to observe them. Identification in court was substantive evidence, while the test identification parade provided corroboration. Alleged prior exposure of some accused to some witnesses did not, on the whole record, invalidate the dependable court identification.
Issues
- Whether the eyewitness identifications were reliable despite alleged prior exposure and publication of photographs.
- Whether the timing or asserted infirmities of the test identification parade undermined conviction.
Held
- Court identification is substantive evidence; a prior parade generally tests and corroborates identification of previously unknown accused. Its absence or infirmity does not make court identification inadmissible, and weight depends on the circumstances. There is no inflexible period within which a parade must occur. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 21)
- All five witnesses were injured in close encounters and had sufficient opportunity to retain the assailants’ features. The parade was conducted without undue investigative delay, accounting for necessary judicial permissions concerning one accused. (¶¶ 14, 18, 19, 22)
- Two witnesses’ evidence stood apart from the asserted exposure of three others; the parade concerning accused six had no demonstrated infirmity. Considering all circumstances, the in-court identification was truthful and reliable and proved participation. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23)
- With the eyewitness account accepted, subsidiary disputes over proof of recoveries required no further elaboration. The appellants’ convictions and sentences were affirmed. (¶¶ 24, 25)
Result
Appeals dismissed. The appellants’ convictions and sentences were affirmed on the accepted eyewitness evidence.