First-time dock identification without a prior TIP is unsafe where witnesses lacked prior acquaintance.

On 22 May 2012 at about 8:00 p.m., Chatar Singh was shot near the State Veterinary Hospital, Pilkhuva, Hapur, allegedly by members of an unlawful assembly.

The prosecution alleged that four armed persons fired at Chatar Singh, snatched mobile phones, and fled towards the railway line; Chatar Singh died while being taken to a higher medical facility.

The FIR was lodged by his brother Kripal Singh (PW-1) at 11:00 p.m. the same night under Sections 302 IPC and subsequently the accused were charged under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, and 404 IPC.

The Sessions Court convicted the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, besides sentences under Sections 147, 148 and 404 IPC.

Whether the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-3 were sufficiently reliable to establish the accused’s identity and participation in the murder despite material contradictions and the absence of specific roles?

Whether the evidence of PW-2 and PW-4, who claimed to have overheard the accused discussing the offence at a railway station, was credible and sufficient to implicate the accused?

Whether the first-time identification of the accused in court, without a prior test identification parade, could safely be relied upon?

Whether the alleged recoveries of the cartridge, firearm and mobile phones were legally proved and admissible as incriminating evidence?

Whether the prosecution had proved the charges under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149, and 404 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

The Court applied Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 404 IPC concerning unlawful assembly, rioting with deadly weapons, vicarious liability for murder, murder and dishonest misappropriation of property.

Identification evidence must be scrutinised with caution; where the accused are strangers to the witnesses, a test identification parade is ordinarily necessary to test the witnesses’ capacity to identify them, and an uncorroborated first-time dock identification may be unsafe.

The Court relied on Kanan v. State of Kerala, Soni v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Nazim v. State of Uttarakhand, Tukesh Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, and the principles stated in Asharfi and Ram Dhani v. State and Anil v. State regarding individual and properly recorded dock identification.

Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, only that portion of information given by an accused in police custody which distinctly relates to a fact discovered is admissible; the disclosure, discovery and authorship of concealment must be properly proved.

Expert or FSL opinion must disclose the scientific basis and reasons supporting its conclusions; a vague or unreasoned report has little evidentiary value.

The prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and material doubts must enure to the benefit of the accused.

The Court found PW-2 and PW-4 wholly unreliable because their claim that seven fleeing accused loudly discussed the shooting beside a busy railway station and an approaching train was inherently improbable; they attributed no specific statements to individual accused, their presence at the station was not corroborated, and their statements were recorded twelve days after the incident without explanation.

PW-1 and PW-3 materially contradicted each other regarding the number of assailants: the FIR and PW-1 referred to four persons, whereas PW-3 described seven persons who allegedly assaulted and detained him and the JCB operator. Both witnesses also failed to assign specific roles to the accused.

The alleged identifications were unsafe. The witnesses generally did not physically and individually point out each accused, the trial court did not record adequate satisfaction regarding the manner of identification, and no test identification parade was conducted despite several accused being strangers to the identifying witnesses.

The witnesses’ prior exposure to the accused in court, without measures to preserve their identity, further weakened the first-time dock identification.

The alleged cartridge recovery was unsupported by a properly proved Section 27 disclosure statement and was contradicted by the FSL report, which did not find the claimed .315-bore characteristics.

The soil reports were vague, unsupported by reasons, and did not establish the presence of human blood or a reliable connection with the crime scene.

The firearm and mobile phones were not produced before the trial court, the relevant recovery memo was unavailable or confused with another exhibit, and the mobile phone’s IMEI number was never matched with the recovered device.

Consequently, the prosecution evidence, viewed cumulatively, did not establish the identity or participation of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

The High Court allowed both criminal appeals and set aside the Sessions Court judgment dated 24 August 2016.

The appellants in custody were directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case; Rizawan’s bail bonds and surety bonds were cancelled and the sureties discharged.