In a significant ruling that underscores the importance of procedural rigor in criminal investigations, the Punjab and Haryana High Court acquitted two accused in a 2007 murder case, citing serious deficiencies in the prosecution’s reliance on eyewitness identifications made in court without prior Test Identification Parades (TIPs). The bench, comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudepti Sharma, highlighted the inadmissibility of such identifications and the necessity of ensuring procedural safeguards to uphold justice.
Background
The case revolved around the alleged murder of Bhagwan Singh on March 22, 2007, near Wadda bridge in Sangrur, Punjab. The accused, Kuldeep Singh alias Keepa and Jagtar Singh alias Gora, were convicted in 2013 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, for robbery and murder under Sections 392 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). They were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine, with sentences to run concurrently.
The prosecution alleged that the accused, armed with a firearm, had intercepted Bhagwan Singh, shot him, and stolen his motorcycle and mobile phone. However, the High Court found the evidence presented by the prosecution insufficient and procedurally flawed.
Key Legal Issues
1. Eyewitness Identification and the Absence of TIP
The prosecution’s case heavily relied on the identification of the accused by eyewitnesses in court. The High Court, however, deemed these identifications unreliable, emphasizing the absence of a prior Test Identification Parade.
Justice Sureshwar Thakur observed:
“Identification of accused for the first time in court, without a prior Test Identification Parade, lacks evidentiary efficacy and raises serious doubts about its reliability.”
The court noted that the star witnesses, Reema Singh (PW-2) and Gurbachan Singh (PW-3), admitted to not knowing the accused prior to the incident. Despite this, no effort was made by the investigating officer to conduct a TIP, a crucial step in ensuring the integrity of witness identification.
2. Procedural Lapses in Investigation
The judgment criticized the prosecution for several procedural deficiencies:
– No TIP Conducted: The investigating officer failed to organize a TIP, which would have allowed the witnesses to identify the accused independently before the trial.
– Material Witness Missing: Darshan Singh, an electrician who reportedly informed the complainant about the robbery, was neither cited as a witness nor brought to the stand.
– Inadequate Descriptions: The descriptions of the accused given by the witnesses were vague, with no specific physical features noted that could establish the identity of the accused convincingly.
3. Faulty Evidence of Recovery
The court found the recoveries of the stolen motorcycle and weapon legally insufficient to establish the accused’s guilt. The motorcycle was recovered from a publicly accessible area, making it impossible to prove that the accused alone had exclusive knowledge of its location. Similarly, the firearm allegedly used in the crime was not sent for ballistic analysis, leaving a critical gap in linking the weapon to the injuries sustained by the victim.
Justice Thakur remarked:
“Recoveries from public spaces devoid of exclusive access render such evidence legally inefficacious.”
4. Medical Evidence
The medical evidence, while confirming that Bhagwan Singh died of gunshot injuries, could not link the weapon recovered to the injuries. The court criticized the failure to seek a ballistic expert’s opinion on whether the recovered firearm could have caused the injuries described in the post-mortem report.
Observations
The judgment highlighted the vital role of procedural safeguards, particularly in cases relying on circumstantial evidence and eyewitness accounts. It reiterated that:
– TIPs are indispensable in cases where witnesses do not know the accused prior to the incident.
– Proper forensic procedures, including ballistic analysis, are essential to establish a clear link between the recovered weapon and the crime.
The court also emphasized that procedural lapses not only weaken the prosecution’s case but also risk undermining public confidence in the justice system.
Final Order
Quashing the trial court’s conviction and sentencing order, the High Court acquitted both Kuldeep Singh alias Keepa and Jagtar Singh alias Gora. The court directed their immediate release if not required in other cases and ordered a refund of any fines paid.
Justice Thakur concluded:
“The snatching of procedural safeguards in a criminal investigation results not just in injustice to the accused but also to the victim, whose right to justice is compromised by investigative lapses.”
