Stray Admission of Media Coverage Insufficient to Invalidate Properly Conducted Test Identification Parade: Karnataka High Court Upholds Murder Conviction

Significantly, the Court considered and noted that the conviction did not rest solely on the TIP. In the matter, it was reinforced by the testimony of the injured eyewitness, last-seen evidence placing the accused together prior to the crime, recovery of blood-stained weapons and clothes at the instance of the accused, and corroborative forensic findings.

A Division Bench comprising Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T observed, “…This Court while considering the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the admission that it has come in media, but no specific question was put to the witness that whether their photographs were published in media prior to the identification or subsequent to the identification and hence, the said stray admission that it has come in the media will not comes to the aid of the accused…”.

“…it is very clear that she has narrated how an incident has taken place and she is an eye witness to the incident and immediately after the death of her husband, she gave the statement between 10.30 to 11.30 p.m. and narrated each of overt act of the accused persons and also categorically given the description of accused Nos.1 to 3 that two were tall and one was short and the person who was short itself assaulted her and the fact that she also sustained injury is not in dispute and wound certificate is also produced. Hence, it is clear that she is an eye witness to the incident. No doubt, learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.1 to 3 got elicited the answer in the cross-examination that the incident was published in the newspaper and also she says that photo of the accused also came in the newspaper, this Court has to take note of the same”, the bench further observed.

Advocate Rajesh Rao K appeared for the appellant and Rashmi Jadhav, Additional SPP appeared for the respondent.

As per the alleged facts, on the night of 3-10-2017, the deceased was allegedly lured outside his home on the pretext of providing sand. According to the complaint lodged by his wife (P.W.1), three men attacked him with machetes when he refused to supply sand. While she herself was assaulted and sustained injuries when she tried to intervene.

It was further alleged by the prosecution that Accused No.4 had conspired to eliminate the deceased due to a land dispute concerning property behind the victim’s house and had paid ₹1,26,000 as “supari” to Accused No.1, who in turn engaged Accused Nos.2 and 3.

Now, the defence had argued that since the injured eyewitness initially did not know the accused and admitted during cross-examination that the case had appeared in the media, the subsequent Test Identification Parade was unreliable.

However, rejecting this contention, the Court noted that no specific suggestion was put to the eyewitness or to the Tahsildar who conducted the TIP that the accused’s photographs had been published before the parade.

The Bench observed that without establishing actual prejudice, courts cannot presume that identification was tainted merely because the matter was reported in the press. A vague or general reference to media publication, the Court held, cannot by itself demolish identification evidence.

Therefore, finding no infirmity in the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court, the Bench affirmed the life sentence of four accused for offences under Sections 302 read with 120-B IPC and 323 read with 34 IPC, holding that the chain of circumstances stood fully established against the accused.

Cause Title: Sandeep & Ors. v. State Of Karnataka CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1994/2019

Appearances:

Appellants: Rajesh Rao K, Dinesh Kumar K. Rao, Advocates.

Respondent: Rashmi Jadhav, Addl. SPP, Advocate.

Click here to read/download the Judgment