Non-Conduct Of TIP, Unnatural Conduct of Witnesses Vitiates Trial: Kerala High Court Acquits Accused In Murder Case
The High Court held that the failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade, when read together with serious infirmities in the conduct and testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses, rendered their identification of the accused unsafe and unworthy of acceptance.
The Kerala High Court, while acquitting a man accused of murder, held that the non-conduct of a Test Identification Parade, coupled with multiple vitiating factors such as unnatural behaviour on the part of the prosecution witnesses, rendered the dock identification of the accused unreliable and insufficient to sustain a conviction.
The Court was hearing a criminal appeal challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Court, Thalassery, which had convicted the appellants for offences including murder under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Background
The prosecution's case arose from an incident in which the deceased was allegedly attacked by an unlawful assembly late at night following an earlier altercation. It was alleged that the assailants used deadly weapons, resulting in fatal injuries to the deceased.
An FIR was registered based on the statement given by a companion of the deceased. After investigation, a final report was filed alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case was committed to the Court of Session and put on trial.
During the trial, the prosecution examined nineteen witnesses and marked several documents and material objects. The defence also led evidence. The trial court convicted some of the accused and sentenced them to imprisonment for life, while acquitting others. Aggrieved thereby, the convicted accused preferred the present appeal.
Court’s Observation
At the outset, the High Court concurred with the trial court’s finding that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and that the injuries sustained amounted to culpable homicide amounting to murder. The Court found no infirmity in the medical and forensic evidence on that aspect.
However, the Court found itself in disagreement with the trial court on the crucial issue of the identification of the assailants. It noted that the conviction rested almost entirely on the testimonies of three witnesses who were projected as eye-witnesses to the incident.
With respect to the principal witness who lodged the FIR, the Court noted serious omissions and contradictions. Most significantly, the witness had failed to disclose the identity of a key accused in the First Information Statement, despite claiming to have witnessed an earlier altercation involving that accused, which allegedly provided the motive for the crime. The Court held that such an omission, when read along with other proved contradictions, deprived the testimony of the degree of credibility required to safely rely on an eyewitness.
The Court further examined the testimony of another alleged eye-witness and found his conduct to be highly unnatural. Despite claiming to have witnessed the brutal attack on a close friend, the witness neither accompanied the deceased to the hospital nor informed the police or family members, and admitted to having learnt of the death only the next morning.
The Court held that such conduct cast serious doubt on the reliability of his testimony. It also found that his description of the weapons used and injuries inflicted constituted material improvements over his earlier statement and did not tally with the post-mortem findings.
As regards the third witness, the Court noted that he was unable to identify any of the accused in court and that his version only established that an incident had occurred, without connecting any particular accused to the crime.
The Bench also took note of the long delay between the date of the incident and the recording of evidence. The prosecution witnesses identified the accused for the first time in court more than nine years after the incident, despite having had no prior acquaintance with them. In this context, the Court found it significant that no Test Identification Parade had been conducted during the investigation.
While reiterating that identification in a Test Identification Parade is not substantive evidence and that non-holding of such a parade does not, by itself, vitiate a trial, the Court held that in cases where dock identification is itself doubtful, a Test Identification Parade assumes critical importance as a corroborative safeguard.
The Court concluded that the non-conduct of a Test Identification Parade, taken together with the unnatural conduct of the witnesses, material contradictions, omissions, and improvements in their testimonies, rendered their evidence as eye-witnesses suspect and unworthy of acceptance insofar as the identification of the accused was concerned.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court held that there was no reliable evidence on record to connect the appellants with the crime alleged by the prosecution. Finding that the conviction was founded on unsafe and unreliable identification evidence, the Court set aside the judgment of the trial court.
The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentences imposed on the appellants were quashed, and the appellants were directed to be released forthwith, unless required in connection with any other case.
Cause Title: Manden Babinesh v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:96441)
Appearances:
Appellants: P. Vijayabhanu, Senior Advocate, with other Advocates
Respondent: T.R. Renjith, Public Prosecutor