Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-004895-004895 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 38293/2023 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law |
| Questions of Law | Can dock identification via video conferencing years after the incident be sustained without complying with Sections 147 & 148 Evidence Act procedures and proper TIP safeguards? |
| Ratio Decidendi | Delayed dock identification over video link by an infirm witness without spectacles, coupled with no prior TIP attendance or compliance with Sections 147 & 148 safeguards, is inherently unreliable. Courts must electronically transmit prior written statements when recording evidence via video conferencing and ensure TIPs are conducted with proper baparda and independent witnesses. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | On 2–3 November 2008, intruders armed with sharp weapons broke into a Sukhdev Vihar residence, fatally stabbed an elderly male occupant and grievously injured his wife. An FIR was registered; co-accused were acquitted at trial. The sole surviving eye-witness identified the appellant via video link eight years later; weapon and pant were recovered at his instance. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All courts recording witness evidence via video conferencing in criminal trials must follow these safeguards. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Sections 147 & 148 of the Indian Evidence Act apply equally to testimony recorded via video conferencing: prior written statements must be electronically transmitted and shown to the witness for cross-examination.
- Dock identification after a significant delay, especially by a weak-sighted or infirm witness and without spectacles, is unsafe unless proper TIP and confrontation safeguards are strictly observed.
- Adverse inference from an accused’s refusal to join a TIP cannot stand if the TIP itself suffered procedural defects—no baparda, no independent witnesses, no court attendance by the identifying witness.
- Recoveries (weapon, pant, looted articles) uncorroborated by identification during testimony or matching blood groups lose evidentiary value.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Standard of Interference: Echoing Mekala Sivaiah, the Court will not disturb concurrent factual findings unless perverse or ignoring vital evidence.
- Identification Evidence: PW-18 was elderly, infirm, with weak distance vision; identification over video link after 8½ years without spectacles and introduction of new details (black shirt, “chheni”) contradicted her prior Section 161 statement.
- TIP Flaws: No record of baparda, no witness signatures, no evidence PW-18 ever attended the parade; ACMM testimony did not confirm her presence—undermines adverse-inference basis.
- Recoveries: Blood-stained pant’s stains did not match scene blood group; looted articles not identified on oath; absence of independent witnesses at seizure.
- Conclusion: With the identification and recoveries rendered unreliable, no evidence remained to sustain conviction; trial and High Court judgments set aside; appellant acquitted.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Accused-Appellant)
- Identification by an elderly, weak-sighted witness via video link after 8½ years is inherently unreliable.
- Witness’s testimony showed material improvements (chheni, clothing) absent from her Section 161 statement, suggesting tutoring.
- TIP was fundamentally flawed: no baparda, no PW-18 presence, no signatures or court record of her attendance.
- Recoveries (pant, chheni, looted articles) lacked independent corroboration; blood-stain did not match scene group.
- No separate Section 302 IPC charge was framed; conviction simpliciter untenable.
Respondent (State)
- Injured witness consistently identified the appellant as one of the assailants armed with a chheni and rod.
- Recoveries at appellant’s instance, including the weapon, were corroborated by medical opinion linking the chheni to PW-18’s injuries.
- Appellant’s criminal antecedents and the heinous nature of the offence warranted upholding conviction.
Factual Background
On the intervening night of 2–3 November 2008, intruders attacked a Sukhdev Vihar residence, fatally stabbing Madan Mohan Gulati and grievously injuring his wife Indra Prabha, who was hospitalised. An FIR followed; during investigation the appellant was arrested, made disclosure statements leading to recoveries, and a Test Identification Parade was attempted. At trial, co-accused were acquitted and the appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC primarily on the injured witness’s court identification and recoveries.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 147 Evidence Act: Evidence of matters in writing requires production of the document or proof of entitlement to secondary evidence; witness must be confronted with the document when under examination.
- Section 148 Evidence Act: A witness can be cross-examined on prior written statements; if used to contradict, those parts must be shown before proof.
- Application to Video Conferencing: The Court mandated electronic transmission of prior statements/documents to the witness in advance to uphold these statutory requirements during remote testimony.
Procedural Innovations
- Courts must electronically transmit prior written statements or documents to witnesses when recording evidence via video conferencing to comply with Sections 147 & 148 Evidence Act.
- Trial courts are directed to safeguard TIP procedures: ensure baparda, independent witnesses, and witness signatures on parade records for admissibility.
Alert Indicators
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Extends Sections 147 & 148 Evidence Act to remote testimony and mandates electronic transmission of documents.
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reaffirms deferential approach to concurrent findings, interfering only on perverse outcomes or ignored evidence.