Summary
The eyewitnesses did not previously know the assailants, relied on undisclosed rumours for names, and identified them in court without a test identification parade. In these circumstances, identity was not reliably proved; recovery evidence alone could not fill the gap. The Court acquitted Suryavir and, finding the co-accused identically placed, recalled his earlier unreasoned SLP dismissal, granted leave and acquitted him too. Both were to be released unless required in another case.
Issues
- Whether identification based on undisclosed rumours and first-time courtroom identification reliably proved the assailants’ identity.
- Whether identical relief should extend to a co-accused whose SLP had earlier been dismissed without reasons.
Held
- The witnesses were unaware of the assailants’ identity before the occurrence, and the source of the rumours supplying the names was neither disclosed nor examined. The mother did not establish that she had previously seen the convicted accused at her house. Without a test identification parade, the first courtroom identification was insufficient on these facts. (¶ 17)
- The remaining recovery evidence was subsidiary and could not by itself establish guilt in the absence of reliable substantive identification evidence. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and Suryavir was acquitted of the charges. (¶ 18)
- The co-accused’s prior SLP dismissal was unreasoned, and both convicted accused stood on the same footing. Following the exceptional course adopted in earlier cases to prevent manifest injustice, the Court extended the acquittal despite the absence of a fresh prayer or application by that co-accused. (¶ 19-22)
- The earlier SLP dismissal was recalled, the petition restored, leave granted and the co-accused’s appeal allowed. The Registry was to notify the relevant jail authorities. Both accused were ordered released unless needed for another offence. (¶ 22-24)
Result
Both convicted accused acquitted of all charges and ordered released unless required in another case. Co-accused’s earlier unreasoned SLP dismissal recalled, leave granted and his appeal allowed.