Identification of accused by unknown eyewitness in court without conducting test Identification parade not credible: Punjab and Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court acquitted a convict in a murder case after finding that the prosecution case was not credible and the testimony of an eyewitness was unreliable.

Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma stated that the testimony of an eyewitness unknown to the accused is not credible if he directly identified him in Court, without a prior identification parade. The Court also found that the witness had to describe key characteristics of the accused before giving evidence to the police.

These observations were made while hearing an appeal against Kuldeep Singh’s conviction under Sections 302, 392 of the Code of Civil Procedure in a murder case and who was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2013.

According to the prosecution, the appellant Kuldeep Singh along with another co-accused committed the murder of Bhagwan Singh in the fields and fled on a motorcycle.

After reviewing the submitted materials, the Tribunal found that the position of the prosecutor’s office was questionable. The panel noted that the purported eyewitness had testified to the investigating officer that the accused was clean-shaven, but thus gave “inappropriate descriptions of key physical characteristics of the accused that would otherwise be required and which were unique to him.”

The Court opined that the police should have conducted an identification parade to establish the identity of the accused.

“Nevertheless, the prosecution witness… identified the accused in court, and yet without first conducting a valid identification parade, after which the first time the witness in court identified… the accused-appellants, but obviously this appears to be an extremely poor identification,” the court said.

Further, the Tribunal found the witness unreliable as he had deposed that he was informed by an electrician named Darshan Singh that his deceased cousin had been injured by the accused but did not produce the electrician as a witness.

“However, since the prosecution has omitted to call Darshan Singh as a prosecution witness or to ensure his accession as a witness, therefore, the negligence (supra) on the part of the prosecution has caused grave prejudice… and with respect to the truthfulness of the statement given by PW-2 Reema Singh As a result, no credit can be given to the evidence of PW-2 Reema Singh.”

Speaking on behalf of the adjudicator, Justice Sureshwar Thakur also stressed that the 315 caliber pistol along with live bullets, allegedly recovered on the instructions of the accused, was never sent to a ballistics expert for his opinion. “The omission to send the recovered .315 caliber pistol along with the cartridges to the ballistics expert is therefore crucial,” the bench added.

Taking into account the above, the Court overturned the contested judgment and allowed the appeal.

Mr. Nandan Jindal, learned counsel for the appellants.

Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Addl. AG, Punjab.

Title: Kuldeep Singh @ Keepa and another v. State of Punjab

Click here to read/download the order