Mukesh Singh vs The State (NCT of Delhi)

Facts of the case 

The convict  lodged an appeal in the Supreme Court of India against the verdict of the Delhi High Court, in which he was found guilty under Sections 302, 392, 394, and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 34. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the additional sessions judge was upheld. The appellant, Mukesh Singh, was convicted for offenses under Sections 302(punishment that is death, life imprisonment and/or fine for murder), 392(Punishment for robbery.), 394(Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery), and 397(Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) read with Section 34(Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. The incident took place at Azadpur Subzimandi, where the appellant was accused of being part of a group that robbed and injured the complainant and his friend. The complainant, Sushil Kumar, identified the appellant and others as the attackers. The appellant chose not to participate in a Test Identification Parade (TIP) and maintained his innocence. The court also took into account the discovery of incriminating evidence at the appellant’s residence as a factor against him. 

Issues involved in the case 

1. Did the appellant convict’s appeal get dismissed by the high court in error, resulting in the affirmation of the judgment and sentence passed by the trial court for the alleged offenses?
2. Can an accused refuse to take part in the Test Identification Parade (TIP) if they were already identified by eyewitnesses before the TIP was conducted? What is the significance of any order passed by the Magistrate under Section 54A of the CrPC directing a person to participate in the TIP?

Contention of parties 

Petitioner 

The appellant’s convict’s learned counsel contended that the lower courts committed a serious error in their conclusion that the prosecution had successfully proven the case beyond reasonable doubt. They also argued that the conviction was primarily based on the testimony of the sole eyewitness, PW1-Sushil Kumar, with no other substantial evidence to support the appellant’s guilt. Furthermore, they emphasized the inadequately lit crime scene, which could have affected the witness’s ability to clearly identify the assailants. The counsel also strongly argued that adverse inferences should not be drawn from the appellant’s refusal to participate in the Test Identification Parade (TIP), as the witness had already seen the accused prior to it.

Respondent 

The state contended that the eyewitness had ample opportunity to remember and recognize the attackers, including the appellant, and therefore his testimony should be considered as reliable evidence of identification in court. Despite the lack of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) and the identification of the appellant in court, the state argued that the witness’s testimony should not be disregarded. Furthermore, the state emphasized the discovery of the weapon used in the crime and the currency notes found in the appellant’s residence as further evidence supporting the case against him.

Judgement 

The appellant convict’s conviction was reaffirmed and the trial court’s decision was upheld by the judgment in the case. The prosecution was found to have successfully established a case against the appellant convict beyond a reasonable doubt by the appellate court. Furthermore, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant convict and affirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. The identification of the accused convict by the witnesses before the Trial Court was emphasized by the Court as substantive evidence of identification in court and was upheld. Despite the appellant convict’s refusal to participate in the Test Identification Parade, the Court held that the substantive evidence of identification in court remained reliable and trustworthy. Ultimately, the Court found that the appeal had failed and dismissed it. Additionally, the Court took note of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and found that it was not violated in asking the accused to be present for the test identification parade. The Court also referred to Article 54(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, stating that it empowered the Court to direct for placing the accused at the test identification parade for identification by any person or persons in such manner as the Court may deem fit. The accused cannot refuse to be a part of the TIP as it is not his evidentiary act and hence cannot be resisted. We are convinced with the line of reasoning adopted by the Trial Court as well as by the High Court in holding the appellant convict guilty of the alleged crime. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

In the course of the hearing of this appeal, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant hails from a very poor family and is undergoing sentence past more than sixteen years. In other words, he has been in jail for the past sixteen years. We grant liberty to the appellant herein to file a representation addressed to the competent authority of the State (NCT of Delhi) for premature release. 

Conclusion 

The present case dealt with the significant matter of whether compelling the accused to attend a test identification parade (TIP) is in violation of article 20(3) of the Indian constitution. It was determined that requiring the presence of the accused for identification during the TIP does not contravene the aforementioned constitutional provision. This is because the act of identification by a witness is not an action performed by the accused to establish their guilt, despite their forced presence.

References 

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2014/34547/34547_2014_14_1501_46309_Judgement_24-Aug-2023.pdf

https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/08/25/test-identification-parade-do-not-violate-article-203-constitution-supreme-court/

https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments

The case analysis is written by Harsha Shekhawat, a student of Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida, 1^st semester, an intern under Legal Vidhya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin