Summary
Three men were convicted of murdering a Chennai businessman in 2008 on the case that two of them, business rivals of the deceased, conspired to hire the third to kill him with a sickle. The Madras High Court disbelieved the conspiracy and acquitted the alleged hirers, but upheld the hired assailant's conviction under Section 302 IPC solely on his identification by a single eyewitness. The Supreme Court acquitted him: the eyewitness gave no description of the assailant in the FIR, the investigating officer admitted the witness had identified the accused at the police station before the test identification parade, rendering the parade and the court identification meaningless, nothing else linked him to the crime or the weapon, and once the conspiracy that supplied the only motive for his involvement was rejected, there was no basis to sustain his conviction on the same evidence.
Issues
- Whether the conviction of an alleged hired assailant can be sustained on a sole eyewitness's identification where the accused had been shown to the witness at the police station before the test identification parade and the conspiracy to hire him has been disbelieved.
Provisions considered
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860Conviction and life sentence set aside for failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 1, 13, 16)
- Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860The High Court acquitted all accused of conspiracy; with the conspiracy disbelieved there was no material that the co-accused hired the appellant, undermining the sole basis of his alleged involvement. (¶¶ 1, 2, 7, 10)
Held
- Following Anil Phukan, Heera, Sheikh Sintha Madhar, State of Maharashtra v. Suresh and Gireesan Nair, a test identification parade is meaningful only where the accused is not previously known to the witness; the investigating officer admitted that the witness identified the accused at the police station before the parade, so the identification in court lost all value, and the FIR lodged by the same witness contained no description of the assailant. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- Other than the identification there is no material whatsoever, scientific or otherwise, linking the appellant to the crime or to the sickle; the High Court dealt with his guilt casually in two paragraphs after rejecting the prosecution case against the principal conspirators on the same evidence, and an accused cannot be convicted on preponderance of probability. Interference with concurrent findings is justified where gross errors cause miscarriage of justice. (¶¶ 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
Result
Appeal allowed; conviction and life sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC by the trial court on 04.12.2009, as affirmed by the Madras High Court on 15.03.2010, quashed; appellant acquitted and his bail bond discharged.