iminal Appeal No 55 of 1970
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 26 1969 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No 1037 of 1969 and Referred No 82 of 1969
Yogeshwar Prasad section K Bagga and Sureshta Bagga for the appellants
O P Rana for the respondent
Sikri J
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at AllAhabad confirming conviction of the two appellants by the Sessions Judge Mainpuri under section 30234 of the Indian Panel Code
Appellant Jadunath Singh was sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge and appellant Girand Singh was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life
In order to appreciate the points raised before us by the learned counsel for the appellants it is necessary to state a few facts
It is alleged against the appellants that on February 26 1968 at about 730 am in furtherance of their common intention they murdered one Ram Swarup Pandey by repeatedly stabbing him to death when he was passing on the Grand Trunk road in the town of Bewar to catch a truck
As many as 34 injuries were found on the deceased at the postmortem conducted on his body on the same day at about 3 pm
The prosecution case in brief is as follows  It is common ground that there was great enmity between the deceased and Laturi Ahir and his sons the two appellants
The deceased apprehended danger to his life from them and on November 23 1967 be sent an application to the Superintendent of Police Mainpuri alleging that Laturi and his son Jadunath Brahma Panna Lal and Anokhey et were terrorising the weaker and poorer sections of the village community and declaring openly that they would kill the deceased to silence his opposition for ever
He prayed that an enquiry may be made and suitable action taken against them
On February 25 1968  the deceased came to Bewar in the evening to meet the ADO in connection with an enquiry on a complaint made against Munshi Lal Pradhan of the village
He could not meet the ADO as he was out of station
He stayed during the 919 night with Prem Narain PW 1 who happened to be a brother inlaw of his cousin Gulati Ram
According to Prem Narain both of them got up in the morning at 645 am and since it was Shivratri that day the deceased did not take any food and they left for the bus stand at Bewar
When they reached the bus stand at about 710 am they found that the bus for Etah via Sultanganj had already left
The next bus was due to go at 930 am but as the deceased thought that he could get a seat in some truck near the Prem Hotel and the Octroi barrier they left the bus stand for the Octroi barrier
When they reached the house of Kotwal Singh on the way both the accused attacked the deceased with chhuri and knife respectively Jadunath had the chhuri and Girand Singh had the knife
Both the deceased and Prem Narain were unarmed
On hearing the cries of the deceased Prem Narain asked the appellants why they were attacking the deceased
Then Girand Singh appellant advanced towards him and gave a knife cut at his right wrist
On the deceased falling down both accused persons attacked him with their respective weapons
On his raising the alarm Mahesh Chandra and Dwarka Prasad who were coming along the same road came and they shouted at the appellants
On hearing their shouts the accused ran away
The deceased died on the spot
The First Information Report was lodged at 8 am the Police Station being only two furlongs from the scene of occurrence
In the First Information Report in the second column under the heading Name and residence of accused it was stated as follows 1
Jadu Nath Singh father s name not known and 2
Girand Singh father s name not known
Ahirs by caste residents of Garhia Kishunpur PS Bewar Distt
Mainpuri
 The accused surrendered on March 12 1968 and it appears that an application was filed by the advocate on their behalf that they be kept ba pardah as they might claim identification
Another application was put in on March 25 1968 in which it was stated that the witnesses other than Prem Narain were strangers and they applied that there should be an identification parade
On April 19 1968 the then Public Prosecutor submitted a report to the Additional District Magistrate as under Accused Jadu Nath Singh and Girand Singh in case Cr No 24 under Section 302 IPC PS Bewar have applied for identification vide application herewith attached
It may be submitted that they are named in the FIR and charge sheet against them has also been received
The applications are moved to delay this case
Submitted for na
 920 The Additional District Magistrate Judicial passed the following order on the application on April 20 1968  As charge sheet has already been received and the accused have been named by PWs there appears to be no justification for ordering test identification
Accused be informed accordingly
The jail authorities be informed not to keep them ba parda
 We have set out these facts in detail because as will presently appear one of the points raised by the learned counsel is that failure to put up the accused for identification either vitiated the trial or in any case rendered the evidence of PW 2 Mahesh Chandra and PW 3 Dwarka Prasad useless
We may here notice that portion of the evidence of Dr N K Mital who conducted the postmortem examination and on which one other point is sought to be founded
He found that the stomach was empty and the small intestines were half full and the large intestines were also half full
In cross examination he stated that since the stomach was empty the deceased should have taken his last meal about 4 to 6 hours before the infliction of the injuries
 He was asked  The evidence is that the deceased took puris and vegetable at 8 pm on 25 2 68 and according to the case for the prosecution his murder took place at 730 am on 26 2 68
At the time of post mortem the stomach was found empty and both the small and large intestines were found half full
Does it not indicate that in all likelihood the man was murdered between 3 and 4 am  To this question Dr Mital answered No It is not an indication of this fact
After finishing his meal at about 8 or 830 pm on 25 2 68 the stomach could have got empty by 2 or 230 am
The digested food material should have come in the small intestine by about 2 or 230 am Complete digestion takes place in the small intestine
And if he had answered the call of nature the preceding evening fully and completely even then the small and large in testines might be half full and stomach empty if he had taken puries with vegetable at 8 pm on 25 2 68  The learned Sessions Judge believed the evidence of Prem Narain corroborated as it was by the injuries sustained by him in the course of the occurrence at the hands of one of the assailants namely Girand Singh
He also believed the evidence of Mahesh Chandra PW 2 and Dwaraka Prasad PW 3
He relied on the fact that the appellants had absconded immediately after the crime and had only appeared before the Court as late as March 12 921 1968 after proceedings under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been taken against them
Regarding the claim of the appellants for identification the learned Sessions Judge observed that during the course of investigation both Mahesh Chandra and Dwarka Prasad had named the accused persons and it would indeed have been surprising if the Additional District Magistrate Judicial had directed the accused to be paraded at a test identification parade in the jail
He observed that the evidence indicated that the accused persons were not strangers even to Mahesh Chandra and Dwarka Prasad at the time of the occurrence
Mahesh Chandra had stated in his evidence that he had known the accused persons for about 4 years and that they were living at village Garhiya lying at a distance of three furlongs from Bewar and that Girand Singh was reading at the Amar Shaheed Inter College Bewar
Dwarka Prasad had stated that he had seen Girand visiting Bewar before that day
He had also seen Jadu Nath Singh at Bewar but only once or twice before that
For all these reasons the learned Sessions Judge held that the applications claiming identification were not bona fide and were intended to protract the proceedings and accordingly he was unable to draw any adverse inference against the prosecution for the omission to parade the accused persons at a test identification parade in the jail
The High Court believed the three eyewitnesses Prem Narain Mahesh Chandra and Dwarka Prasad
The High Court held that Mahesh and Dwarka Prasad are wholly independent witnesses having no affinity with the deceased and entertaining no animosity towards the appellants
 The High Court observed that these  witnesses had claimed to have known the appellants for the last six or seven years as they had been frequently visiting the town of Bewar and the appellant Girand Singh was a student in a college at Bewar
The learned counsel for the appellants raised two principal points before us 1 Since the accused were denied identification the trial was vitiated 2 The medical evidence is in conflict with the prosecution case about the time of the assault
The learned counsel further urged that the number and nature of injuries belie the prosecution story and that the application by the deceased to the Superintendent of Police was nothing but a peshbandi
He urged that the eye witnesses were not reliable and the courts below had missed the point that the appellants could not have anticipated that the deceased would be at this particular spot at that time
922 The learned counsel relied on the following observations of the Lahore High Court in Sajjan Singh vs Emperor1 If an accused person is already well known to the witnesses an identification parade would of course be only a waste of time
If however the witnesses claim to have known the accused previously while the accused himself denies this it is difficult to see how the claim made by the witnesses can be used as a reason for re using to allow their claim to be put to the only practical test
Even if the denial of the accused is false no harm is done and the value of the evidence given by the witnesses may be increased
It is true that it is by no means uncommon for persons who have been absconding for a long time to
claim an identification parade in the hope that their appearance may have changed suffi ciently for them to escape recognition
Even so this is not in itself a good ground for refusing to allow any sort of test to be carried out
It may be that the witnesses may not be able to identify a person whom they knew by sight owing to some change of appearance or even to weakness of memory but this is only one of the facts along with many others such as the length of time that has elapsed which will have to be taken into consideration in determining whether the witnesses are telling the truth or not
 State of UP vs Jagnoo 2  refers to Sajjan Singh vs Emperor1 with approval
In re Sangiah3 the decision of the Lahore High Court in Sajjan Singh vs Emperor Supra was dissented from Rajamannar J observed  I am unable to find any provision in the Code which entitles an accused to demand that an identification parade should be held at or before the enquiry or the trial
An identification parade belongs to the stage of investigation by the police
The question whether a witness has or has not identified the accused during the investigation is not one which is in itself relevant at the trial
The actual evidence regarding identification is that which is given by the witness in Court
The fact that a particular witness has been able to identify the accused at an identification trade is only a circumstance corroborative of the identification in Court
If a witness has 1 AIR 1945 Lab 48 50
2 AIR 1968 All 333 3 ATR  923 not identified the accused at a parade or otherwise during the investigation the fact may be relied on by the accused but I find nothing in the provisions of the Code which confers a right on the accused to demand that the investigation should be conducted in a particular way
 In Perkash Chand Sogani vs The State of Rajasthan 1 an unreported decision of this Court in connection with the point regarding identification it was observed  Much is sought to be made out of the fact that no identification parade was held at the earliest opportunity in order to find out whether PW 7 Shiv Lal could have identified the appellant as the person who was at the wheel of the car and drove it and reliance is placed upon Awadh Singh  Others vs The Patna State2 Provash Kumar Bose and Another vs The King3 and also Phipson on the Law of Evidence 9th Ed p 415 to justify the contention that in criminal cases it is not sufficient to identify the prisoner in the dock but the police should have held an identification parade at the earliest possible opportunity to show that the accused person had been connected with the crime
It is also the defence case that Shiv Lal did not know the appellant
But on a reading of the evidence of PW 7 it seems to us clear that Shiv Lal knew the appellant by sight
Though he made a mistake about his name by referring to him as Kailash Chandra it was within the knowledge of Shiv Lal that the appellant was a brother of Manak Chand and he identified him as such
These circumstances are quite enough to show that the absence of the identification parade would riot vitiate the evidence
A person who is well known by sight as the brother of Manak Chand even before the commission of the occurrence need not be put before an identification parade in order to be marked out
We do not think that there is any justification for the contention that the absence of the identification parade or a mistake made as to his name would be necessarily fatal to the prosecution case in the circumstances In Awadh Singh vs The State2 it was held that the accused person may or may not have legal right to claim for test identification and the holding of test identification may or may not be a rule of law but it is a rule of prudence
Test identification parade should be held especially when the accused persons definitely as 1 Criminal Appeal No 92 of 1956 decided on January 15 1957
2 AIR 1954 Patna 483 3 AIR 1951 Cal
475 924 sert that they were unknown to the prosecution witnesses either by name or by face and they requested the authorities concerned to have the test identification parade held In Provesh Kumar Bose vs The King1 a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Harries CJ  Das Gupta J held The fact that the witnesses have identified in Court the accused is of very little consequence in a prosecution under section 384 Penal Code when none of the witnesses knew the accused from before  the cor roborative evidence which one is entitled to expect in cases of this nature is the evidence of the witnesses having pointed the accused whom they identified in Court from the midst of other persons with whom they were mixed up at a test identification parade
The evidence of their having identified such persons at a test identification parade has no substantive value but is very important corroboration of their evidence in Court
 In Kanta Prasad vs Delhi Administration  3  a point was made regarding non holding of test identification parade by the police and this Court observed  As for the test identification parade it is true that no test identification parade was held
The appellants were known to the police officials who had deposed against the appellants and the only persons who did not know them before were the persons who gave evidence of association to which the High Court did not attach much importance
It would no doubt have been prudent to hold a test identification parade with respect to witnesses who did not know the accused before the occurrence but failure to hold such a parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in court
The weight to be attached to such identification would be a matter for the courts of fact and it is not for this Court to reassess the evidence unless exceptional grounds were established necessitating such a course
 It seems to us that it has been clearly laid down by this Court in Perkash Chand Sogani vs The State of Rajasthan3 that the absence of test identification in all cases is not fatal and if the accused person is well known by sight it would be waste of time to put him up for identification
Of course if the prosecution fails to hold an identification on the plea that the witnesses already knew the accused well and it transpires in the course of the trial 1 AIR 1951 Cal
2  1221
3 GA No 92 of 1956 decided on 15 1 1957
925 hat the witnesses did not know the accused previously the prosecution would run the risk of losing its case
It seems to us that if there is any doubt in the matter the prosecution should hold an identification parade specially if an accused says that the alleged eyewitnesses did not know him previously
It may be that there is no express provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure enabling an accused to insist
on an identification parade but if the accused does make an application and that application is turned down and it transpires during the course of the trial that the witnesses did not know the accused previously as pointed out above the prosecution will unless there is some other evidence run the risk of losing the case on this point
In the present case however it is clear that PW Mahesh Chandra knew the accused persons for about four years and said  I know the accused persons Jadunath Singh and Girand Singh for about 4 years
They live at village Garhiya lying at a distance of three furlongs from Bewar
Girand Singh is reading at the Amar Shaheed Inter College Bewar
 No cross examination was directed on this point
PW 3 Dwarika Prasad stated I had seen Girand visiting Bewar before that but I had seen Jadunath at Bewar only once or twice before that day
Identifies both the accused persons in the dock
Lays hand correctly on Jadunath and also lays hands correctly on Girand in the dock
 In cross examination he stated I had seen Jadunath accused at Bewar at the shop of one Chhakku once or twice before the occurrence
I had seen him two or 2 12 years back
 It seems to us that the reason given by the Public Prosecutor in the report and the reason given by the Additional District Magistrate Judicial in the order directing that identification requested for be not held were not valid
The fact that a charge sheet had been received and the accused had been named by PWs was no justification for not having ordered the test identification
But on the facts of this case it is clear that PW 2 at least knew the accused from before
As regards PW 3 although he claims to have known the accused it is clear that his knowledge of the accused was very scant and if it had not been for the evidence of PW 2 we would not have placed reliance on the 926 evidence of PW 3 in view of the fact that the police did not ask him to identify the appellant
It is stated in Phipson on the Law of Evidence 9th Ed p 415 as follows  In criminal cases it is improper to identify the accused only when in the dock the police should place him before hand with others and ask the witness to pick him out
Nor should the witness be guided in any way nor asked Is that the man We consider that the same is the law in India if the identity is in doubt
Accordingly on the facts of this case we are of the opinion that the trial was not vitiated because the accused persons were denied identification
Regarding the second point we have already extracted the evidence of the doctor and it is quite clear to us that the evidence is not in conflict with the prosecution case
If the occurrence took place at about 730 am and the deceased had not taken any food in the morning his stomach would still be empty at 730 am
If anything the medical evidence destroys the case of the defence that the murder took place at about 3 in the morning
We are unable to think that the deceased would leave with Prem Narain at 3 am to catch a bus which was supposed to leave at about 7 am
This appeal is by special leave and this Court does not reappropriation the evidence
The other points raised by the learned counsel are of that nature and at any rate there is no substance in those points
The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed
GC Appeal dismissed
L694SupCI70 2500 29 4 72 GIPF


Summary:
The appellants were accused of an offence under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
Apart from P who was injured in the incident there were according to the prosecution two other eye witnesses M and D who
knew the appellants from before
The names of the appellants were mentioned in the First Information Report but not their parentage
The appellants at the stage of inquiry made an application to the Additional District Magistrate Judicial requesting that a test identification parade be held
According to the appellants P knew them from before but not the other two alleged eye witnesses
The Magistrate rejected the application on the ground that the charge sheet had already been filed
The same request made at the trial stage to the Sessions Judge was again rejected on the ground it was not bona fide
The trial court believing the eye witnesses convicted the appellants
The High Court upheld their conviction and did not accept their plea that the trial had been vitiated because they had been denied a test identification parade
In appeal to this Court by special leave HELD As laid down by this Court in Perkash Chand Sogani s case the absenceof test identification in all cases is not fatal andif the accused person is well known by sight it would be waste of time to put him up for identification
But if there is any doubt in the matter the prosecution should hold an identification parade specially if an accused says that the alleged eyewitnesses did not know him previously
It may be that there is no express provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure enabling an accused to insist on an identification parade but if the accused  does make an application and that application is turned down and it transpires during the course of the trial that the witnesses did not know the accused previously the prosecution will unless there is some evidence run the risk of losing the case on this point
924 G 925 C Perkash Chand Sogani vs State of Rajasthan Cr
921956 dt
15 1 1957 applied
Sajjan Singh vs Emperor AIR 1945 Laj 48 State of UP vs Jagnoo AIR 1962 All
333 In re Sangish AIR 1948 Mad 113 Awadh Singh  Ors
vs Patna State AIR 1954 Pat 483 Provash Kumar Bose vs The King AIR 1951 Cal
475 Kanta Prasad vs Delhi Administration  1221 referred to
In the present case it could be said about D that his knowledge of the accused was very scant
The claim of the other witness M that he had known the accused for about four years was not challenged in crossexamination
Therefore on the facts of the case the trial of the appellants
918 Could not be held to be vitiated because of the denial of test identification although the reason given by the Magistrate for refusing it namely that the cbarge sheet had already been filed was wrong
925 G 926 C