Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

1    

Reportable  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 740 OF 2018  

RAJA         …Appellant  

VERSUS  

STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE   …Respondent  

WITH  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1608-1609 OF 2018  

GOVINDARAJ AND ORS.     …Appellants  

VERSUS  

STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,  

SINGARAPATTAI POLICE STATION,   

KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT     …Respondent  

J U D G M E N T  

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.  

1. Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 (preferred by original Accused  

No. 1) and Criminal Appeal Nos. 1608-1609 of 2018 (preferred by original

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

2    

Accused Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6) challenge the common judgment and order dated  

27.04.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissing  

Criminal Appeal Nos. 604 of 2012 and 92 of 2013 preferred by said accused  

as well as original Accused No. 4 (who is stated to have expired since then).  

2. The case of the prosecution as set out in paragraphs 2.1 to 2.3 of the  

judgment under appeal is as under:-  

“… …Mr. Sengoda Goundar was the father of P.Ws. 1  

and 3 and husband of P.W.2.  P.W.4 is the wife of  

P.W.3 and the daughter-in-law of the deceased.  P.W.5  

is the grandson of the deceased and P.W.2.  P.Ws. 3  

and 4 had a child also and all of them were living  

together under one roof in Nallavumpatti village.  

2.2 On 27.05.1999, P.Ws. 1 to 5, after having their  

dinner, had fallen asleep.  The house of P.W.1 and  

others is facing towards west.  P.W.1 was sleeping in  

the room situated on the northern portion of the house.   

P.Ws. 3 and 4 along with the child were sleeping in the  

room situated on the southern portion of the house.   

P.W.5 was sleeping on the pial situated on the veranda  

in front of the said house.  Just opposite to the said  

house, on the western side, the tractor shed belonging  

to them is situated.  The deceased Sengoda Goundar  

and his wife (P.W.2) were sleeping in the said tractor  

shed.   

2.3 Around 09.30 p.m., they went to the respective  place to sleep.  When they were fast asleep, around  

01.00 a.m. on 28.05.1999, these appellants (accused 1  

to 6) came to the house of the deceased in order to  

commit dacoity.  They first went into the tractor shed  

and started mounting attack with deadly weapons on  

the deceased.  The deceased cried for help which  

awakened P.W.2.  These accused indiscriminately  

attacked P.W.2 also.  She raised alarm and cried for

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

3    

help.  On hearing the cry of the deceased and P.W.2,  

P.W.1 who was sleeping in the room situated on the  

western portion of the house, opened the main door  

from inside and came out.  On seeing him, some of the  

accused attacked him with deadly weapons like knife  

and wooden log.  Since the attack was so violent,  

unable to bear the same and in order to avoid further  

blows being made, P.W.1 crying for help, tried to rush  

inside the house.  By the time, on hearing the alarm  

raised, P.W.3 came out of the house.  Some of the  

accused, attacked him with weapons.  He sustained  

bleeding injuries.  With a view to save himself from  

further attack, he rushed into the house and went into  

the room where his wife was sleeping.  The assailants  

did not stop.  They gave a chase, entered into the said  

room and indiscriminately attacked P.W.3 and his wife  

(P.W.4) with weapons.  Both sustained a number of  

bleeding injuries.  P.W.5 who was sleeping at the Pial,  

awakened by the cry, rushed out.  He was also attacked.   

Raising alarm, he rushed towards the house of one  

Thaluka Goundar.  These assailants, barged into the  

house, looted the properties.  Number of jewels worn  

by the witnesses were snatched away by the accused.   

They broke open the steel bureau in the house and  

committed theft of the jewels.  All happened with a  

short time.  Even before the villagers could gather at  

the place of occurrence, the accused fled away from the  

scene of occurrence with decamped valuable jewels  

and other articles.  P.Ws. 1 to 5 and the deceased were  

struggling for life due to the bleeding injuries.  The  

villagers immediately rushed all of them to the  

Government hospital at Uthangarai.”  

3. All the victims were taken to the hospital, where Sengoda Goundar  

was declared dead.  The following injuries were found on the person of the  

deceased.  

“1. Abrasion 4 cm x 4 cm left shoulder.

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

4    

2.  Contusion 10 cm x 10 cm left wrist.  

3. Contusion 10 cm x 10 cm right wrist.  

4. Lacerated wound 1 cm x bone deep horizontal  

middle head.  

5. Lacerated wound 10 cm x 1 cm bone deep oblique  

left side head.”  

4. The other injured persons were also examined the same day before  

6.00 a.m.   

A) PW1- Sundararajan had following injuries: -  

“1.   An abrasion of 4 x 4 cm on the left shoulder  

2.  A lacerated wound of 10 x 10 cm on the left elbow.  

3.  A lacerated wound of 10 x 10 cm on the right elbow.  

4.   A lacerated wound of 10 x 1 cm to bone deep in the  

centre of the head.  

5.    A lacerated wound of 10 x 1 cm to bone deep in  

the left side of the head.”  

B) PW2-Irusayi was found to be having following injuries:-  

“1. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm at right  

thumb hand.  

2. Lacerated wound 6 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the  

left side of forehead.  

3. Contusion 10 cm x 6 cm left wrist.  

4. Contusion 10 cm x 10 cm back below right  

shoulder.”  

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

5    

C)  PW3-Kumar was found to have suffered injuries as under:-  

“1. A lacerated wound 10 cm x 6 cm x bone deep  

oblique left upper arm.  

2. A lacerated wound 8 cm x 4 cm x 4 cm left upper  

arm below 4 cm wound horizontal.  

3. A lacerated wound 6 cm x 2 cm x bone deep lower  

aspect left upper arm horizontal.  

4. A lacerated wound 10 cm x 1 cm x bone deep  

extending from left ear lobe horizontally backwards.  

5. Lacerated wound above right upper lip extending  

upto left side nose 8 cm x 1 cm x bone deep.  

6. Lacerated wound 4 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm left eyebrow.  

7. Lacerated wound 16 cm x 2 cm x bone deep over  

right shoulder upper aspect oblique.”  

D)  PW4-Thangammal had following injury:-  

 “A lacerated wound 10 cm x 1 cm x bone deep  

extending from forehad vertically to middle head.”  

E)  Following injuries were found on the person of PW5-Sengodan.  

“1. Contusion 10 cm x 10 cm left knee.  

2. Abrasion 6 cm x ¼ cm right thigh middle front.”  

5. At about 6.00 a.m. on 28.05.2009, complaint (Exhibit-P1) was made  

by PW1-Sundararajan, pursuant to which FIR No.238/1999 was registered  

with Singarapettai Police Station, as under:-

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

6    

“On 27-05-1999 night at about 9.30 p.m. we all took  

bed after food.  My father and mother were sleeping in  

the tractor shed in front of the house.  My brother’s son  

Sengodan was sleeping in the veranda of the house.   

My younger brother Kumar and his wife Thangam with  

her child Manju were sleeping in the southern side  

room of the house.  I was sleeping in the northern side  

room of the house.  At about 1.00 clock in the midnight  

I heard noise of my father, woke up and came out of  

the room.  At that time a person wearing red colour  

shirt came  there with a stick in a hand and found  

sitting.  A group of 6 persons were attacking and  

beating my father with stick and koduval.  One among  

them cut the gold chain of about 5 sovereigns and  

removed I cried and raised noise.  Those persons  

attacked me with stick and koduval on my head and all  

over the body.  On hearing my noise my younger  

brother Kumar came out running from the room and his  

hands were tied from behind by them and he was  

beaten with sticks.  His wife Thangam came out to  

avert the beating but she was also attacked by koduval.   

They removed the gold chain of 10 sovereigns worn by  

her, a pair of silver leg chain worn by her also snatched  

by them.  Then they entered into the house and broke  

open the bureau and removed the silver waist chord and  

silver leg chain worn by child.  At that time my  

brother’s son Sengodan raised noise and he was also  

attacked.  All the people ran away.  They were 7  

members of aged group from 20 to 25.  On hearing our  

noise the villagers consisting of Ramasundaram and  

Srinivasan etc. came and took us to the Government  

Hospital, Uthangarai at about 4.00 am in the early  

morning.  I came to know that my father Sengodan  

died.  Others were admitted in the Hospital treated by  

the Doctor.  The value of stolen articles will be  

Rs.45000/- (Forty five thousand).  I can identify the  

jewels stolen if recovered.  I can also identify the  

persons who came and stole the jewels and killed my  

father and attacked us, if they are found.”  

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

7    

6. The investigation was commenced by PW17-M.Chinnathambi,  

Deputy Superintendent of Police.  Accused No.1-Raja, Accused No.2-

Govindraj, Accused No.3-Palani, Accused No.4-Vandikaran @ Murugan,  

Accused No.5-Elumalai and Accused No.7- Arumugam were arrested on  

21.06.1999 while Accused No.6-Chinnapaiyan surrendered himself before  

the Magistrate on 22.06.1999, who remanded him to judicial custody on the  

same day. On 27.06.1999 requisition was made by the Investigating Officer  

for conducting Test Identification Parade (TIP for short) insofar as all the  

arrested accused were concerned.  On 28.6.1999 an application was made  

by the Investigating Officer seeking permission to take Accused No.6 –  

Chinnapaiyan in police custody. The permission was granted by the  

concerned Magistrate on 29.06.1999 to hold the TIP on 01.07.1999. The  

police custody of Accused No.6 was also given for 3 days from 01.07.1999.  

Thereafter, the TIP was held on 01.07.1999, in which PWs 1 to 5 identified  

the concerned accused.  The TIP was conducted in the presence and under  

the supervision of PW11-Boopalan, who was then working as Sub-Judge,  

Rani Pettai.   

7. During the course of investigation, following recoveries were made  

from the concerned accused.  

i) MO 18 wrist watch was recovered from Accused No.1

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

8    

ii) MO 12 gold chain, MOs 21, 23 & 24 gold articles, MOs 46  

and 47 clothes having blood stains were recovered from Accused  

No.2  

iii) MOs 48 and 49 namely clothes including a red shirt were  

recovered from Accused No.3.  

iv) MOs 13, 14, 15 and 19 being gold articles were recovered  

from Accused No. 4.  

v) MOs 6 and 16 being gold articles were recovered from  

Accused No. 5.  

vi) MO 17 a wrist watch and MOs 43 and 56 being gold articles  

were recovered from Accused No. 6.  

8. After completion of investigation, the aforementioned seven  

accused persons were charged of having committed various offences  

including those punishable under Sections 109, 120B, 394, 395, 396, 449 of  

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’, for short).  The prosecution, in support  

of its case, principally relied upon the testimonies of PWs 1 to 5 who  

identified Accused Nos. 1 to 6 to be the assailants. All the witnesses,  

however, stated that Accused No. 7 was not present as a member of the  

assembly.  In their cross examination, it was suggested to all the witnesses  

that the accused were shown to the witnesses while they were in custody and  

that their photographs were also published in newspapers before the TIP was  

undertaken.  The responses of these witnesses were as under:-  

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

9    

a) PW1-Sundararajan stated:-  

“Police showed the jewels and the accused and asked  

us to identify them as to whether they are the persons  

who are caught.  We did not see in the police station.   

We saw in the papers.  I do not know whether it was  

published in the paper 25 days after the occurrence.  It  

is not correct to say that I identified them in the Central  

Jail because I saw them already in the papers.  It is not  

correct to say that I identified them in the Jail because  

I saw them in the police station and in the papers  

already.”    

b) PW2-Erusayee stated:-  

“At the time of occurrence totally 6 persons came.  I  

saw them for the first time only then.  I have not seen  

them before.  Police said that they were caught I saw in  

the police station then saw them in the Central Jail,  

Salem.”  

c) PW3-Kumar stated:-  

“In the enquiry by the police I have stated that, 6  

unidentifiable persons came and attacked.  I did not say  

that identifiable persons attacked us.  I have stated I can  

identify them if seen.  I identified in the police station.  

… …I identified in the Singarapettai Police Station one  

month after the occurrence.”  

d) PW4-Thangammal stated:-  

“It is not correct to say that I am deposing falsely that  

gold chain of 4 sovereigns was stolen.  Singarapettai  

Police also came and wrote.  Police asked in the Salem  

Jail thereafter.  I identified in Salem.  We identified in  

Morappur police station.”  

e) PW5-Sengodan stated:-  

“I did not say the identity of the accused when police  

examined me.  It is not correct to say that, I am  

deposing falsely because of enmity between our family  

and Arumugam’s family or that I identified Arumugam

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

10    

in the jail.  It is not correct to say that because police  

showed me the photos of the accused which were  

published in the paper and I was already shown the  

accused in Morappur police station,  I was called for  

identification and so I identified the accused.  The daily  

newspaper “Dhina Thanthi” was not coming to our  

village at that time.”  

9. PW11-Boopalan, Sub-Judge in whose presence the TIP was  

conducted, stated that the Accused Nos.1 to 6 were made to stand for  

identification along with 19 other inmates from the Central Prison who were  

used as dummies and that PWs.1 to 5 identified Accused Nos.1 to 6.  PW8-

Thangaraj, Village Administrative Officer, in whose presence, the  

recoveries were said to have been effected, turned hostile.  The prosecution  

did not examine the other Panch, Kasim. PW17, the Investigating Officer,  

in his cross examination by the Accused 1 to 5 and 7 stated :-   

“It is not correct to say that, the accused 1 to 5 and 7  

were brought to Singarapettai Police station where they  

were shown to the witnesses and identified. I do not  

know if the photos of the accused 1 to 5 and 7 were  

already published in the newspaper before 21-06-

1999.”  

10. The case of the prosecution was accepted by the Additional Sessions  

Judge, Krishnagiri, who by the judgment dated 24.07.2012 found Accused  

Nos.1 to 6 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 394, 396, 449  

IPC. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were also convicted under Section 395 read with  

Section 397 IPC while Accused Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 were convicted under

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

11    

Section 395 IPC and all were awarded the sentence of life imprisonment  

along with other sentences, including payment of fine and default sentences.   

Accused No.7 was, however, acquitted of all the charges.   

11. Thereafter, Criminal Appeal No.604 of 2012 was preferred by  

Accused Nos. 1 to 5 while Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2013 was preferred by  

Accused No.6. By its common judgment and order dated 27.04.2016 the  

High Court affirmed the view taken by the Trial Court and dismissed both  

the appeals.  Being aggrieved, Accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 have preferred  

these Criminal Appeals.  We have heard Mr. Rahul Shyam Bhandari, learned  

Advocate for the Accused No.1 and Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned  

Senior Advocate for the other accused and Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, learned  

Advocate for the State.  

12. The principal submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants are:  

(a)  The initial reporting shows that the identity of the assailants  

was not known to any of the witnesses. The admissions given by PWs.  

1, 2, 3 and 4 in their cross-examination show that the accused were  

shown to the witnesses in the Police Station. It is accepted that the  

photographs of the accused were published in local newspapers.

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

12    

(b)  According to the initial version of the prosecution, Accused  

No.7, a neighbour living in the vicinity was responsible for the crime  

and the appellants were said to be his accomplices. However, every  

eye-witness stated that Accused No.7 was not involved in the crime.  

The acquittal of said Accused No.7 was accepted by the prosecution.  

There was thus no connection of the appellants with the crime.   

(c)   The recoveries were not supported by PW8-Thangaraj. The  

other Panch was also not examined.  

13. Mr. Kanna, learned advocate for the State, however, submitted that  

as found by the Courts below, the eye-witness account through PWs.1 to 5  

was clear, cogent and completely reliable. Every one of those prosecution  

witnesses had suffered injuries; their presence could never be doubted; and  

considering the nature of injuries the opportunity available to them to  

observe the features of each of the Accused was quite sufficient.    

14. In the present case, the incident occurred after mid night.  The  

prosecution witnesses 1 to 5 suffered injuries in the transaction but the initial  

reporting showed that the identity of the assailants was not known to the  

witnesses.  It is true that no identification marks or attributes were stated but

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

13    

it was asserted that the assailants were in the age group of 20 to 25 and one  

of the assailants had worn a red colour shirt.  Further, if the nature and  

number of injuries suffered by each of the witnesses are considered, the  

assailants must have been quite close to the witnesses to afford to the  

witnesses sufficient time and opportunity to observe their features.   

15. It has been accepted by this Court that what is substantive piece of  

evidence of identification of an accused, is the evidence given during the  

trial.  However, by the time the witnesses normally step into the box to  

depose, there would be substantial time gap between the date of the incident  

and the actual examination of the witnesses.  If the accused or the suspects  

were known to the witnesses from before and their identity was never in  

doubt, the lapse of time may not qualitatively affect the evidence about  

identification of such accused, but the difficulty may arise if the accused  

were unknown.  In such cases, the question may arise about the correctness  

of the identification by the witnesses.  The lapse of time between the stage  

when the witnesses had seen the accused during occurrence and the actual  

examination of the witnesses may be such that the identification by the  

witnesses for the first time in the box may be difficult for the court to place  

complete reliance on.  In order to lend assurance that the witnesses had, in  

fact, identified the accused or suspects at the first available opportunity, the

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

14    

TIP which is part of the investigation affords a platform to lend  

corroboration to the ultimate statements made by the witnesses before the  

Court.  However, what weightage must be given to such TIP is a matter to  

be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case.  

16. Again, there is no hard and fast rule about the period within which  

the TIP must be held from the arrest of the accused. In certain cases, this  

Court considered delay of 10 days to be fatal while in other cases even delay  

of 40 days or more was not considered to be fatal at all.  For instance, in  

Pramod Mandal v. State of Bihar1 the accused was arrested on 17.01.1989  

and was put up for Test Identification on 18.02.1989, that is to say there was  

a delay of a month for holding the TIP.   Additionally, there was only one  

identifying witness against the said accused.  After dealing with the  

decisions of this Court in Wakil Singh v. State of Bihar2, Subhash v. State  

of Uttar Pradesh3 and Soni v. State of Uttar Pradesh4 in which benefit was  

conferred upon the accused because of delay in holding the TIP, this Court  

considered the line of cases taking a contrary view as under:   

“18. Learned counsel for the State submitted that in the  

instant case there was no inordinate delay in holding  

the test identification parade so as to create a doubt on  

        1   (2004) 13 SCC 150  2  (1981) Suppl. SCC 28  3  (1987) 3 SCC 231  4  (1982) 3 SCC 368  

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

15    

the genuineness of the test identification parade. In any  

event he submitted that even if it is assumed that there  

was some delay in holding the test identification  

parade, it was the duty of the accused to question the  

investigating officer and the Magistrate if any  

advantage was sought to be taken on account of the  

delay in holding the test identification parade. Reliance  

was placed on the judgment of this Court in Bharat  

Singh v. State of U.P.5 In the aforesaid judgment this  

Court observed thus: (SCC p. 898, para 6)  

“6. In Sk. Hasib v. State of Bihar6 it was  

observed by the Court that identification  

parades belong to the investigation stage and  

therefore it is desirable to hold them at the  

earliest opportunity. An early opportunity to  

identify tends to minimise the chances of the  

memory of the identifying witnesses fading  

away due to long lapse of time. Relying on this  

decision, counsel for the appellant contends that  

no support can be derived from what transpired  

at the parade as it was held long after the arrest  

of the appellant. Now it is true that in the instant  

case there was a delay of about three months in  

holding the identification parade but here again,  

no questions were asked of the investigating  

officer as to why and how the delay occurred. It  

is true that the burden of establishing the guilt  

is on the prosecution but that theory cannot be  

carried so far as to hold that the prosecution  

must lead evidence to rebut all possible  

defences. If the contention was that the  

identification parade was held in an irregular  

manner or that there was an undue delay in  

holding it, the Magistrate who held the parade  

and the police officer who conducted the  

investigation should have been cross-examined  

in that behalf.”  

 5  (1973) 3 SCC 896  6 (1972) 4 SCC 773

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

16    

In the instant case we find that the defence has not  

imputed any motive to the prosecution for the delay in  

holding the test identification parade, nor has the  

defence alleged that there was any irregularity in the  

holding of the test identification parade. The evidence  

of the Magistrates conducting the test identification  

parade as well as the investigating officer has gone  

unchallenged. Learned counsel for the State is,  

therefore, justified in contending that in the facts and  

circumstances of this case the holding of the test  

identification parade, about one month after the  

occurrence, is not fatal to the case of the prosecution as  

there is nothing to suggest that there was any motive  

for the prosecution to delay the holding of the test  

identification parade or that any irregularity was  

committed in holding the test identification parade.  

19. Learned counsel for the State has also relied upon  

the decision of this Court in Anil Kumar v. State of  

U.P.7 wherein the test identification parade was held  

47 days after the arrest of the appellants. This Court  

after considering several decisions of this Court  

including the decisions in Brij Mohan v. State of  

Rajasthan8, Daya Singh v. State of Haryana9 and  

State of Maharashtra v. Suresh10 concluded that since  

the identifying witness was attacked by the assailants  

including the appellant and another, he had a clear look  

at the assailants. When his younger brother came to  

save him, he was killed by the assailants while the  

witness also received serious injuries. These were  

circumstances which would have imprinted in the  

memory of the witness the facial expressions of the  

assailants and this impression would not diminish or  

disappear within a period of 47 days. Similar was the  

case of the father and the mother of the identifying  

witness who had seen the assailants attacking their sons  

and one of their sons getting killed. In their memory  

also the facial expressions of the assailants will get  

 7   (2003) 3 SCC 569  8  (1994) 1 SCC 413  9   (2001) 3 SCC 468  10  (2000) 1 SCC 471

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

17    

embossed. A mere lapse of 47 days would not erase the  

facial expressions from their memory.  

20. It is neither possible nor prudent to lay down any  

invariable rule as to the period within which a test  

identification parade must be held, or the number of  

witnesses who must correctly identify the accused, to  

sustain his conviction. These matters must be left to the  

courts of fact to decide in the facts and circumstances of  

each case. If a rule is laid down prescribing a period  

within which the test identification parade must be held,  

it would only benefit the professional criminals in whose  

cases the arrests are delayed as the police have no clear  

clue about their identity, they being persons unknown to  

the victims. They, therefore, have only to avoid their  

arrest for the prescribed period to avoid conviction.  

Similarly, there may be offences which by their very  

nature may be witnessed by a single witness, such as  

rape. The offender may be unknown to the victim and  

the case depends solely on the identification by the  

victim, who is otherwise found to be truthful and  

reliable. What justification can be pleaded to contend  

that such cases must necessarily result in acquittal  

because of there being only one identifying witness?  

Prudence therefore demands that these matters must be  

left to the wisdom of the courts of fact which must  

consider all aspects of the matter in the light of the  

evidence on record before pronouncing upon the  

acceptability or rejection of such identification.  

21. Lastly in Malkhansingh v. State of M.P. 11

a three-

Judge Bench of this Court of which one of us (B.P.  

Singh, J.) was a member, after considering various  

decisions of this Court observed thus: (SCC pp. 751-52,  

para 7)  

“7. It is trite to say that the substantive evidence  

is the evidence of identification in court. Apart  

from the clear provisions of Section 9 of the  

Evidence Act, the position in law is well settled  

by a catena of decisions of this Court. The facts,  

 11  (2003) 5 SCC 746

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

18    

which establish the identity of the accused  

persons, are relevant under Section 9 of the  

Evidence Act. As a general rule, the substantive  

evidence of a witness is the statement made in  

court. The evidence of mere identification of the  

accused person at the trial for the first time is  

from its very nature inherently of a weak  

character. The purpose of a prior test  

identification, therefore, is to test and  

strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence.  

It is accordingly considered a safe rule of  

prudence to generally look for corroboration of  

the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to  

the identity of the accused who are strangers to  

them, in the form of earlier identification  

proceedings. This rule of prudence, however, is  

subject to exceptions, when, for example, the  

court is impressed by a particular witness on  

whose testimony it can safely rely, without such  

or other corroboration. The identification  

parades belong to the stage of investigation, and  

there is no provision in the Code of Criminal  

Procedure which obliges the investigating  

agency to hold, or confers a right upon the  

accused to claim a test identification parade.  

They do not constitute substantive evidence and  

these parades are essentially governed by  

Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  

Failure to hold a test identification parade  

would not make inadmissible the evidence of  

identification in court. The weight to be  

attached to such identification should be a  

matter for the courts of fact. In appropriate  

cases it may accept the evidence of  

identification even without insisting on  

corroboration.”  

(emphasis supplied by us)  

 This Court thus found the evidence as regards identification to be  

trustworthy and dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused.

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

19    

17. In Daya Singh v. State of Haryana9 the incident had occurred on  

09.04.1988 and the accused was arrested on 28.05.1988 and was put up for  

test identification on 02.06.1988.  However, the accused refused to take part  

in the TIP.  Thereafter, the eye-witnesses, PWs 37 and 38, were examined  

in the trial after a lapse of seven and half years and eight years respectively  

from the date of occurrence.  The ground regarding lapse of time between  

the occurrence and the actual identification in Court was dealt with by this  

Court as under:   

“11. At this stage we would first refer to the decisions  

upon which reliance is placed. In the case of Soni4 this  

Court observed that a delay of 42 days in holding the  

identification parade throws a doubt on genuineness  

thereof, apart from the fact that it is difficult that after  

a lapse of such a long time the witnesses would be  

remembering facial expression of the appellant. In the  

case of Mohd. Abdul Hafeez v. State of A.P.12 the  

Court while dealing with a robbery case observed that  

as no identification parade was held, no reliance can be  

placed on the identification of the accused after a lapse  

of four months in the Court. In the case of Hari Nath13  

the Court observed that evidence of test identification  

is admissible under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. But  

the value of test identification, apart from the other  

safeguards appropriate to a fair test of identification  

depends upon the promptitude in point of time with  

which the suspected persons are put up for test  

identification. If there is an unexplained and  

unreasonable delay in putting up the accused persons  

for a test identification, the delay by itself detracts from  

the credibility of the test. The Court further referred to  

 12 (1983) 1 SCC 143  13 (1988) 1 SCC 14

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

20    

(para 9) Prof. Borchard: Convicting the Innocent on the  

basis of error in identification of the accused. The  

learned author has observed:  

“The emotional balance of the victim or  

eyewitness is so disturbed by his  

extraordinary experience that his powers of  

perception become distorted and his  

identification is frequently most  

untrustworthy. Into the identification enter  

other motives not necessarily stimulated  

originally by the accused personally — the  

desire to requite a crime, to exact vengeance  

upon the person believed guilty, to find a  

scapegoat, to support, consciously or  

unconsciously, an identification already  

made by another. Thus, doubts are resolved  

against the accused.”  

12. In AIR paras 10 and 11, the Court has observed as  

under: (SCC p. 21, paras 19-21)  

“19. The evidence of identification merely  

corroborates and strengthens the oral  

testimony in court which alone is the  

primary and substantive evidence as to  

identity. In Sk. Hasib v. State of Bihar6 this  

Court observed: (SCC p. 777, para 5)  

‘… the purpose of test identification is  

to test that evidence, the safe rule  

being that the sworn testimony of the  

witness in court as to the identity of  

the accused who is a stranger to him,  

as a general rule, requires  

corroboration in the form of an earlier  

identification proceeding.’  

20. In Rameshwar Singh v. State of J&K14 this Court  

observed: [SCC p. 718, SCC (Cri) p. 641, para 6]  

 14 (1971) 2 SCC 715

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

21    

‘… it may be remembered that the  

substantive evidence of a witness is his  

evidence in court, but when the accused  

person is not previously known to the  

witness concerned then identification of the  

accused by the witness soon after the  

former’s arrest is of vital importance  

because it furnishes to the investigating  

agency an assurance that the investigation  

is proceeding on right lines in addition to  

furnishing corroboration of the evidence to  

be given by the witness later in court at the  

trial.’  

21. It is, no doubt, true that absence of corroboration  

by test identification may not assume any materiality if  

either the witness had known the accused earlier or  

where the reasons for gaining an enduring impress of  

the identity on the mind and memory of the witness are,  

otherwise, brought out. It is also rightly said that:  

‘Courts ought not to increase the difficulties  

by magnifying the theoretical possibilities. It  

is their province to deal with matters actual  

and material to promote order and not  

surrender it by excessive theorising or by  

magnifying what in practice is really  

unimportant.’ ”  

13. The question, therefore, is — whether the evidence  

of injured eyewitnesses PW 37 and PW 38 is sufficient  

to connect the appellant with the crime beyond  

reasonable doubt. For this purpose, it is to be borne in  

mind that the purpose of test identification is to have  

corroboration to the evidence of the eyewitnesses in the  

form of earlier identification and that substantive  

evidence of a witness is the evidence in the court. If  

that evidence is found to be reliable then absence of  

corroboration by test identification would not be in any  

way material. Further, where reasons for gaining an  

enduring impress of the identity on the mind and

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

22    

memory of the witnesses are brought on record, it is no  

use to magnify the theoretical possibilities and arrive at  

conclusion — what in present-day social environment  

infested by terrorism is really unimportant. In such  

cases, not holding of identification parade is not fatal  

to the prosecution. The purpose of identification parade  

is succinctly stated by this Court in State of  

Maharashtra v. Suresh 10

as under: (SCC p. 478, para  

22)  

“We remind ourselves that identification  

parades are not primarily meant for the court.  

They are meant for investigation purposes.  

The object of conducting a test identification  

parade is twofold. First is to enable the  

witnesses to satisfy themselves that the  

prisoner whom they suspect is really the one  

who was seen by them in connection with the  

commission of the crime. Second is to satisfy  

the investigating authorities that the suspect  

is the real person whom the witnesses had  

seen in connection with the said occurrence.”  

(Emphasis supplied by us)  

18. It is, thus, clear that if the material on record sufficiently indicates  

that reasons for “gaining an enduring impression of the identity on the mind  

and memory of the witnesses” are available on record, the matter stands in  

a completely different perspective.  This Court also stated that in such cases  

even non-holding of identification parade would not be fatal to the case of  

the prosecution. Applying the tests so laid down to the present case, in view  

of the fact that each of the eyewitnesses had suffered number of injuries in  

the transaction, it can safely be inferred that every one of them had sufficient

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

23    

opportunity to observe the accused to have an enduring impression of the  

identity of the assailants.  It is not as if the witnesses had seen the assailants,  

in a mob and from some distance. Going by the injuries, the contact with the  

accused must have been from a close distance.   

19. Furthermore, in the present case all the accused were arrested on  

21.06.1999 except Accused No.6 who surrendered before the Magistrate on  

22.06.1999 and was remanded to judicial custody.  After securing  

permissions from the Magistrate, the police custody of Accused No.6 was  

obtained on 01.07.1999 and the TIP was held on 01.07.1999 itself.  There  

was, thus, no delay on part of the investigating machinery in getting TIP  

held on 01.07.1999.  

20. However, what is urged, is that at least three of the eyewitnesses had  

accepted that the accused were shown to them while the accused were in  

police custody. The responses of PWs 1, 2, and 3 as quoted hereinbefore do  

indicate that they had seen and identified the accused while they were in  

custody.  The suggestion that the witness was able to identify the accused  

only because they were shown while the accused were in police custody or  

that their photographs had appeared in newspaper, was, however, denied by  

PW1.  The response of PW4 was with regard to identification of gold chain

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

24    

of four sovereign and that is why the identification was in Morappur police  

station whereas from the responses of PWs 1, 2 and 3 it is clear that the  

accused were in Singarapettai police station.  The response of PW4 does not  

indicate that the witness had seen the accused while they were in custody.   

PW5 completely denied the suggestion that he could identify only because  

the accused were shown while they were in custody and that because the  

photographs of the accused were shown to the witnesses.  He also denied  

that newspaper “Dhina Thanthi”, which apparently had published the  

photographs of the accused, was available in their village at that time.  No  

defence evidence has been placed on record either to establish the date of  

publication of such photographs in any newspaper and whether the  

newspaper “Dhina Thanthi” was normally available in the concerned  

village.  

21. Thus, out of five prosecution witnesses who were all injured in the  

transaction, the testimonies of at least two of them, namely, PWs 4 and 5  

stand on a different footing.  Even with respect to PWs 1, 2 and 3, though  

there is some room to say that the accused were shown to the witnesses while  

they were in custody, that part by itself may not be sufficient in the light of

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

25    

the discussion in Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)15 which was to the  

following effect:  

“252. It is also contended by the defence that since the  

photographs were shown to the witnesses this  

circumstance renders the whole evidence of  

identification in court as inadmissible. For this, it was  

pointed out that photo identification or TIP before the  

Magistrate, are all aides in investigation and do not  

form substantive evidence. Substantive evidence is the  

evidence of the witness in the court on oath, which can  

never be rendered inadmissible on this count. It is  

further pointed out that photo identification is not hit  

by Section 162 CrPC as adverted to by the defence as  

the photographs have not been signed by the witnesses.  

253. In support of his argument the Senior Counsel for  

Manu Sharma relies on the judgment of Kartar Singh  

v. State of Punjab16 SCC at p. 711 wherein while  

dealing with Section 22 of TADA the Court observed  

that photo TIP is bad in law. It is useful to mention that  

the said judgment has been distinguished in Umar  

Abdul Sakoor Sorathia v. Narcotic Control Bureau17,  

where a photo identification has been held to be valid.  

The relevant extract of the said judgment is as follows:  

(SCC p. 143, paras 10-12)  

“10. The next circumstance highlighted by the  

learned counsel for the respondent is that a  

photo of the appellant was shown to Mr Albert  

Mkhatshwa later and he identified that figure in  

the photo as the person whom he saw driving  

the car at the time of interception of the truck.  

11. It was contended that identification by photo  

is inadmissible in evidence and, therefore, the  

 15 (2010) 6 SCC 1   16 (1994) 3 SCC 569  17 (2000) 1 SCC 138

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

26    

same cannot be used. No legal provision has  

been brought to our notice which inhibits the  

admissibility of such evidence. However,  

learned counsel invited our attention to the  

observations of the Constitution Bench in  

Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab16 which struck  

down Section 22 of the Terrorist and Disruptive  

Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. By that  

provision the evidence of a witness regarding  

identification of a proclaimed offender in a  

terrorist case on the basis of the photograph was  

given the same value as the evidence of a test  

identification parade. This Court observed in  

that context: (SCC p. 711, para 361)  

‘361. If the evidence regarding the  

identification on the basis of a  

photograph is to be held to have the  

same value as the evidence of a test  

identification parade, we feel that  

gross injustice to the detriment of the  

persons suspected may result.  

Therefore, we are inclined to strike  

down this provision and accordingly  

we strike down Section 22 of the Act.’  

12. In the present case prosecution does not say  

that they would rest with the identification  

made by Mr Mkhatshwa when the photograph  

was shown to him. Prosecution has to examine  

him as a witness in the court and he has to  

identify the accused in the court. Then alone it  

would become substantive evidence. But that  

does not mean that at this stage the court is  

disabled from considering the prospect of such  

a witness correctly identifying the appellant  

during trial. In so considering the court can take  

into account the fact that during investigation  

the photograph of the appellant was shown to  

the witness and he identified that person as the  

one whom he saw at the relevant time. It must  

be borne in mind that the appellant is not a  

proclaimed offender and we are not considering

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

27    

the eventuality in which he would be so  

proclaimed. So the observations made in Kartar  

Singh 16

in a different context is of no avail to  

the appellant.”  

254. Even a TIP before a Magistrate is otherwise hit by  

Section 162 of the Code. Therefore, to say that a photo  

identification is hit by Section 162 is wrong. It is not a  

substantive piece of evidence. It is only by virtue of  

Section 9 of the Evidence Act that the same i.e. the act  

of identification becomes admissible in court. The  

logic behind TIP, which will include photo  

identification lies in the fact that it is only an aid to  

investigation, where an accused is not known to the  

witnesses, the IO conducts a TIP to ensure that he has  

got the right person as an accused. The practice is not  

borne out of procedure, but out of prudence. At best it  

can be brought under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, as  

evidence of conduct of a witness in photo identifying  

the accused in the presence of an IO or the Magistrate,  

during the course of an investigation.  

255. Mr Jethmalani has further argued on the  

proposition that mere dock identification is no  

identification in the eye of the law unless corroborated  

by previous TIP before the Magistrate. It has been  

further argued that in any case, even identification in  

court is not enough and that there should be something  

more to hold the accused liable. In support of his  

arguments, he placed heavy reliance on the decision of  

this Court in Hari Nath v. State of U.P. 13 and Budhsen  

v. State of U.P.18 A close scrutiny of these judgments  

will reveal that they in fact support the case of the  

prosecution. These judgments make it abundantly clear  

that even where there is no previous TIP, the court may  

appreciate the dock identification as being above board  

and more than conclusive.  

256. The law as it stands today is set out in the  

following decisions of this Court which are reproduced  

as hereinunder:  

 18  (1970) 2 SCC 128

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

28    

Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P.19: (SCC pp.  

642-45, paras 16-17 & 19)  

“16. As was observed by this Court in Matru  

v. State of U.P.20 identification tests do not  

constitute substantive evidence. They are  

primarily meant for the purpose of helping the  

investigating agency with an assurance that  

their progress with the investigation into the  

offence is proceeding on the right lines. The  

identification can only be used as  

corroborative of the statement in court. (See  

Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain21.) The  

necessity for holding an identification parade  

can arise only when the accused are not  

previously known to the witnesses. The whole  

idea of a test identification parade is that  

witnesses who claim to have seen the culprits  

at the time of occurrence are to identify them  

from the midst of other persons without any  

aid or any other source. The test is done to  

check upon their veracity. In other words, the  

main object of holding an identification  

parade, during the investigation stage, is to test  

the memory of the witnesses based upon first  

impression and also to enable the prosecution  

to decide whether all or any of them could be  

cited as eyewitnesses of the crime. The  

identification proceedings are in the nature of  

tests and significantly, therefore, there is no  

provision for it in the Code and the Evidence  

Act. It is desirable that a test identification  

parade should be conducted as soon as after  

the arrest of the accused. This becomes  

necessary to eliminate the possibility of the  

accused being shown to the witnesses prior to  

the test identification parade. This is a very  

common plea of the accused and, therefore,  

 19  (2005) 9 SCC 631  20  (1971) 2 SCC 75  21  (1973) 2 SCC 406

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

29    

the prosecution has to be cautious to ensure  

that there is no scope for making such an  

allegation. If, however, circumstances are  

beyond control and there is some delay, it  

cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution.  

17. It is trite to say that the substantive  

evidence is the evidence of identification in  

court. Apart from the clear provisions of  

Section 9 of the Evidence Act, the position in  

law is well settled by a catena of decisions of  

this Court. The facts, which establish the  

identity of the accused persons, are relevant  

under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. As a  

general rule, the substantive evidence of a  

witness is the statement made in court. The  

evidence of mere identification of the accused  

person at the trial for the first time is from its  

very nature inherently of a weak character.  

The purpose of a prior test identification,  

therefore, is to test and strengthen the  

trustworthiness of that evidence. It is,  

accordingly, considered a safe rule of  

prudence to generally look for corroboration  

of the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as  

to the identity of the accused who are strangers  

to them, in the form of earlier identification  

proceedings. This rule of prudence, however,  

is subject to exceptions, when, for example,  

the court is impressed by a particular witness  

on whose testimony it can safely rely, without  

such or other corroboration. The identification  

parades belong to the stage of investigation,  

and there is no provision in the Code which  

obliges the investigating agency to hold or  

confers a right upon the accused to claim a test  

identification parade. They do not constitute  

substantive evidence and these parades are  

essentially governed by Section 162 of the  

Code. Failure to hold a test identification  

parade would not make inadmissible the  

evidence of identification in court. The weight  

to be attached to such identification should be

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

30    

a matter for the courts of fact. In appropriate  

cases it may accept the evidence of  

identification even without insisting on  

corroboration. (See Kanta Prashad v. Delhi  

Admn22., Vaikuntam Chandrappa v. State of  

A.P.23, Budhsen v. State of U.P. 18

and  

Rameshwar Singh v. State of J&K 14

.)  

* * *  

19. In Harbajan Singh v. State of J&K24,  

though a test identification parade was not  

held, this Court upheld the conviction on the  

basis of the identification in court  

corroborated by other circumstantial evidence.  

In that case it was found that the appellant and  

one Gurmukh Singh were absent at the time of  

roll call and when they were arrested on the  

night of 16-12-1971 their rifles smelt of fresh  

gunpowder and that the empty cartridge case  

which was found at the scene of offence bore  

distinctive markings showing that the bullet  

which killed the deceased was fired from the  

rifle of the appellant. Noticing these  

circumstances this Court held: (SCC p. 481,  

para 4)  

‘4. In view of this corroborative evidence  

we find no substance in the argument  

urged on behalf of the appellant that the  

investigating officer ought to have held  

an identification parade and that the  

failure of Munshi Ram to mention the  

names of the two accused to the  

neighbours who came to the scene  

immediately after the occurrence shows  

that his story cannot be true. As observed  

by this Court in Jadunath Singh v. State  

of U.P.25 absence of test identification is  

not necessarily fatal. The fact that  

 22  AIR (1958) SC 350  23  AIR (1960) SC 1340  24  (1975) 4 SCC 480  25  (1970) 3 SCC 518

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

31    

Munshi Ram did not disclose the names  

of the two accused to the villagers only  

shows that the accused were not  

previously known to him and the story  

that the accused referred to each other by  

their respective names during the course  

of the incident contains an element of  

exaggeration. The case does not rest on  

the evidence of Munshi Ram alone and  

the corroborative circumstances to which  

we have referred to above lend enough  

assurance to the implication of the  

appellant.’ ”  

Malkhansingh v. State of M.P11: (SCC pp. 751-52,  

para 7)  

“7. It is trite to say that the substantive evidence  

is the evidence of identification in court. Apart  

from the clear provisions of Section 9 of the  

Evidence Act, the position in law is well settled  

by a catena of decisions of this Court. The facts,  

which establish the identity of the accused  

persons, are relevant under Section 9 of the  

Evidence Act. As a general rule, the substantive  

evidence of a witness is the statement made in  

court. The evidence of mere identification of the  

accused person at the trial for the first time is  

from its very nature inherently of a weak  

character. The purpose of a prior test  

identification, therefore, is to test and  

strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence.  

It is accordingly considered a safe rule of  

prudence to generally look for corroboration of  

the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to  

the identity of the accused who are strangers to  

them, in the form of earlier identification  

proceedings. This rule of prudence, however, is  

subject to exceptions, when, for example, the  

court is impressed by a particular witness on  

whose testimony it can safely rely, without such  

or other corroboration. The identification  

parades belong to the stage of investigation, and

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

32    

there is no provision in the Code of Criminal  

Procedure which obliges the investigating  

agency to hold, or confers a right upon the  

accused to claim a test identification parade.  

They do not constitute substantive evidence and  

these parades are essentially governed by  

Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.  

Failure to hold a test identification parade  

would not make inadmissible the evidence of  

identification in court. The weight to be  

attached to such identification should be a  

matter for the courts of fact. In appropriate  

cases it may accept the evidence of  

identification even without insisting on  

corroboration.”  

… … …  

259. In Mullagiri Vajram v. State of A.P.26 it was held  

that though the accused was seen by the witness in  

custody, any infirmity in TIP will not affect the  

outcome of the case, since the depositions of the  

witnesses in court were reliable and could sustain a  

conviction. The photo identification and TIP are only  

aides in the investigation and does not form substantive  

evidence. The substantive evidence is the evidence in  

the court on oath.”     

22.  The facts on record thus indicate with clarity that:  

(a) There was no delay in holding the test identification parade  

and the delay, if any, was attributable to the fact that one of the  

accused was in judicial custody whose presence had to be secured  

only after appropriate permissions from the court;  

 26 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 198  

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

33    

(b) It is not the case of the accused that Accused No.6 was ever  

shown to any of the witnesses.  The test identification parade of  

Accused No.6 has no infirmity on any count and all the witnesses  

consistently identified said Accused No.6;  

(c) Out of five injured witnesses, two had completely denied that  

either the accused or their photographs were shown to the witnesses,  

while other three did accept the suggestion in that behalf; and  

(d)  All the witnesses were injured in the transaction with number  

of injuries. It can, therefore, safely be stated that every one of them  

had adequate and proper opportunity to observe the features of each  

of the accused.  

23. As has been repeatedly laid down by this Court, what is important is  

the identification in Court and if such identification is otherwise found by  

the Court to be truthful and reliable, such substantive evidence can be relied  

upon by the Court. Considering the totality of circumstances on record, the  

presence and participation of the Accused Nos.1 to 6, in our view, stood  

proved through the eyewitness account.  We do not find any infirmity in the  

evidence of identification by PWs 1 to 5.   

Criminal Appeal No. 740 of 2018 etc.  Raja  etc.   vs.  State by the Inspector of Police  

34    

24. Since we have accepted and relied upon the eye-witness account, the  

subsidiary issues like recoveries and whether they were proved in a manner  

known to law, need no further elaboration.  

25. Consequently, we find that the Appellants were rightly found guilty  

of the offences with which they were charged.  Affirming their conviction  

and sentence, we dismiss these appeals.   

     ………………………….J.  

[Uday Umesh Lalit]  

………………………….J.  

[Indu Malhotra]  

New Delhi;  

December 10, 2019.