- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sri Ram v. State Of Uttar Pradesh .
Factual and Procedural Background
This is a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 27 October 1979 in Session Trial No. 149 of 1976, State v. Shri Ram, convicting the appellant under s. 395, I.P.C. and sentencing him to six years rigorous imprisonment. The dacoity occurred on the night intervening 9/10 December 1975. The appellant was arrested on 6 January 1976 and was produced for a test identification parade on 2 March 1976, a delay of 56 days from arrest.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the 56-day delay in holding the test identification parade casts doubt on the genuineness and reliability of the identification evidence.
- Whether the proximity of the appellant's residence to the complainant/witnesses (possibility of prior acquaintance) undermines the reliability of the identification.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The 56-day delay in conducting the identification parade casts doubt on its genuineness and the witnesses' ability to accurately remember the accused's facial features; therefore the appellant should be acquitted.
- The appellant lived in a village two miles from the village of one of the witnesses (Rama Shanker Tewari P.W.5), creating a possibility that the witnesses had seen the appellant before the dacoity, which could prejudice identification reliability.
- Reliance was placed on the decisions “Soni v. State of U.P” (1982) 3 SCC 368 and “Asharfi and Ramdhan (appellant) v. State of U.P (respondent), reported in 1960 AWR 440 : (1960 All LJ 595)”.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| “Soni v. State of U.P”, reported in (1982) 3 SCC 368 (1) | Delay in holding identification parade (42 days in that case) throws doubt on genuineness of the parade and the witnesses' capacity to remember facial features; if identification evidence cannot be relied on, conviction cannot stand. | The court accepted that the delay in the instant case (56 days) similarly cast doubt on the identification evidence and relied on the principle to support allowing the appeal. |
| “Asharfi and Ramdhan (appellant) v. State of U.P (respondent), reported in 1960 AWR 440 : (1960 All LJ 595)” | Authority concerning the effect of prior acquaintance or possibility of prior sightings on the reliability of identification evidence. | The court noted the proximity of the appellant's residence to a witness's village and invoked this authority to support the contention that prior acquaintance could have affected identification reliability. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court considered the timeline: offence on 9/10 December 1975, arrest on 6 January 1976 and test identification parade on 2 March 1976, observing a 56-day delay. It evaluated the appellant's counsel's reliance on Soni v. State of U.P., which held that a 42-day delay cast doubt on identification, and found that the longer delay here similarly raised doubt about the genuineness and reliability of the identification parade. The court also noted the appellant's residence two miles from the village of P.W.5 (Rama Shanker Tewari) and accepted the submission—supported by Asharfi and Ramdhan—that prior acquaintance or the possibility of having been seen before the incident could undermine the identification evidence. On this basis the court concluded that the identification evidence was suspect.
Holding and Implications
Appeal allowed.
Holding: The impugned judgment and order convicting the appellant were set aside.
Implications: The appellant, who was on bail, had his bail bonds cancelled and sureties discharged and need not surrender. The opinion did not purport to establish any new broader precedent beyond applying the cited authorities to the facts; the immediate effect is the acquittal/setting aside of the conviction in this case.
1. This is a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 27th October, 1979 passed by the then learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Ballia, in Session Trial No. 149 of 1976, State v. Shri Ram, convicting the appellant-accused under S. 395, I.P.C and sentencing him to six years rigorous imprisonment.
2. The dacoity in question was committed in the night intervening 9/10th December, 1975. The appellant-accused Shri Ram was arrested on 6-1-1976.
3. He was put up for identification in the test parade on 2-3-1976. There was occurred a delay of 56 days in holding the test identification parade. It is on the basis of all this that the learned counsel for the appellant-accused has vehemently argued that this delay casts dobut as to the genuineness of the identification parade and therefore, the appellant-accused is entitled to be acquitted for this reason alone. He has, for this purpose, placed reliance upon “Soni v. State of U.P”, reported in (1982) 3 SCC 368 (1), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made observations as under:—
“The conviction rests purely upon his identification by five witnesses, Smt. Keeri, Pritam Singh, Kewal, Chaitee and Sinru, but it cannot be forgotten that the identification parade itself was held after a lapse of 42 days from the date of arrest of the appellant. This delay in holding the identification parade throws a doubt on the genuineness thereof apart from the fact that it is difficult that after lapse of such a long time the witnesses would be remembering the facial expressions of the appellant. If this evidence cannot be relied upon there is no other evidence which can sustain the conviction of the appellant. We therefore allow the appeal and acquit the appellant.”
4. The appellant-accused resides in village Jai Nagar, which is at a distance of two mileii from the village Vyaspur of which Rama Shanker Tewari P.W 5 is a resident. This is clear from the statement of Rama Shanker Tewari himself. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant-accused has argued that there is every possibility of the appellant-accused having been seen by the witnesses from before the dacoity. His contention has substance in view of the decision in “Asharfi and Ramdhan (appellant) v. State of U.P (respondent), reported in 1960 AWR 440 : (1960 All LJ 595)”.
5. In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order are set aside. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. He need not surrender.
Appeal allowed.
Alert