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 |
|
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Overrules concurrent findings of High Court and trial court |
| Type of Law | Criminal law and evidence |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that identification made in-court via video conferencing after an eight-and-a-half-year gap, by a witness with impaired eyesight who introduced new details (black shirt) for the first time, is unsafe. It further held that a TIP conducted without ensuring the witness’s presence or the accused’s concealment (baparda), and recoveries uncorroborated by witness identification or matching blood-group tests, cannot support conviction. Finally, the Court directed trial courts to electronically transmit prior written statements or documents to witnesses examined via video link and strictly comply with Sections 147–148 of the Evidence Act. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The prosecution rested on an eye-witness aged 73 with weak eyesight, whose statement was recorded via video link eight and a half years post-incident; a flawed TIP was attempted without witness presence or baparda of the accused; recoveries (pant with human blood, chheni, idol, CD player) lacked proper identification or blood-group match. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All courts conducting criminal trials (trial courts, High Courts, Supreme Court benches) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Courts must transmit prior written statements or documents to witnesses via electronic means before video-conference evidence, ensuring compliance with Evidence Act Sections 147–148.
- Dock identification after multi-year delays over video link and by a witness with impaired vision is highly vulnerable to challenge.
- Adverse inference for non-participation in TIP cannot cure a fundamentally flawed identification parade conducted without baparda or witness presence.
- Recoveries uncorroborated by witness identification or matching forensic tests cannot sustain conviction.
- The decision is binding and must be cited in all criminal trials involving video-conference testimony.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Deference to concurrent findings: Article 136 intervention warranted only for grave miscarriage (Mekala Sivaiah).
- Identification evidence: Eight-year delay, impaired eyesight, absence of spectacles, first-time improvement (black shirt) – dock ID unsafe.
- TIP infirmities: No baparda on accused at arrest, no witness produced for parade, no TIP signature, witness denied attendance – identification parade invalid.
- Recovery evidence: Pant with human blood failed blood-group match; chheni and robbed items not identified by witness – no corroboration.
- Evidence Act procedure: Sections 147–148 / BSA 144–145 require confrontation with prior statements in writing; courts must electronically share documents for cross-examination when testimonies are via video.
- Procedural direction: Trial courts must ensure transmission of documents to video-linked witnesses and strict adherence to Evidence Act protocols.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Accused-Appellant)
- Witness was old, infirm, weak eyesight; identification after 8½ years over video link inherently unreliable.
- Major improvement: “black shirt” detail introduced only at dock identification.
- No TIP in actual presence of witness; accused’s face not kept baparda – identification parade tainted.
- Recoveries (pant, chheni, idol, CD player) lacked independent witness corroboration; pant’s blood not matched.
- No separate charge under Section 302 IPC; conviction irregular.
Respondent (State)
- Injured eye-witness consistently identified appellant as assailant with chheni and rod.
- Recoveries at appellant’s instance corroborate witness version; medical opinion linked chheni to injuries.
- Heinous murder of a senior citizen; appellant’s criminal antecedents warrant upholding conviction.
Factual Background
On the intervening night of 2/3 November 2008, intruders broke into a Sukhdev Vihar residence, killed the elderly homeowner, and grievously injured his wife. The survivor’s statement to police led to FIR 601/2008 under Sections 394/397/302/307/34 IPC. The wife’s statement was recorded at AIIMS, and based on alleged disclosures by the appellant, police recovered a blood-stained pant, a chheni, and looted articles. A TIP was conducted for robberies; the trial Court convicted the appellant solely under Section 302 IPC. The High Court affirmed, prompting this appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Evidence Act Sections 144–145 / BSA 147–148: Mandate that to impeach or contradict a witness with their previous written statement or matter in writing, the witness must first be confronted with the document.
- Constitution Article 136: Supreme Court’s power to correct grave miscarriage of justice arising from perverse or ignored material evidence.
Procedural Innovations
- Electronic transmission of prior statements/documents to witnesses examined via video conferencing before cross-examination.
- Strict adherence to Sections 147–148 of the Evidence Act for video-conference testimonies to safeguard fair trial and effective confrontation.
Alert Indicators
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Supreme Court reverses High Court and trial court concurrent findings.