Flagging missing forensic and post-mortem evidence and failures to put material identification circumstances to the accused under Section 313 CrPC, the Patna High Court has acquitted the appellants in a four-killing case because their involvement was not established beyond reasonable doubt. Crucially, acquittal rested not on defective investigation alone, but on the absence of independent, credible identification evidence.
The Court accepted that the attack occurred but held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellants’ identities as its perpetrators beyond reasonable doubt. It set aside their convictions and granted the benefit of doubt. Emphasising that identification in court remains admissible even without a test identification parade, it was clarified that first-time identification after eight years had minimal probative value without corroboration, and the witnesses’ accounts disclosed no distinctive features or other circumstances warranting an exception to the ordinary rule of prudence.
Although Pramod Kumar’s presence at the scene was undisputed, the Court rejected his account identifying persons standing outside the hut. It also found that torches directed at witnesses by the assailants would cause partial blindness and undermine identification. The Court also criticised the absence of a test identification parade, the failure to produce material exhibits for forensic examination, and the non-production of post-mortem evidence. Material incriminating circumstances, including the source of identification and Binda Yadav’s alleged bullet injury, were not put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC.
Accordingly, the appellants were ordered to be released forthwith unless wanted in another case. The DGP must constitute a three-member senior police committee and take an appropriate administrative view within three months of receipt or production of the judgment. The Home Department must report within one month on its review policy, inquiries instituted and their results.
Briefly, the appeals arose from a 1996 night-time attack on villagers guarding an irrigation embankment near village Kayal in Bihar. Four persons were killed and Pramod Kumar was injured. The FIR was registered against 30–40 unknown extremists said to belong to the Majdoor Kisan Sangram Parishad. The trial court subsequently convicted the appellants under Sections 302/34, 307/34 and 148 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, imposing life imprisonment for murder along with other concurrent sentences.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Kumar Manish observed that accepted that the occurrence took place and that the injured witness, Pramod Kumar, was present, but found that the prosecution had not reliably established the appellants’ identities as the perpetrators. The alleged eyewitnesses gave inconsistent accounts of torchlight identification, and their failure to promptly disclose the assailants’ identities weakened their evidence. The Court also found that light directed at the witnesses by the assailants’ torches would cause partial blindness, making identification difficult. Pramod Kumar’s first identification of an unfamiliar accused in court, eight years after the incident, could not alone support conviction.
The Court strongly criticised the investigation for failing to conduct a test identification parade, produce seized material for forensic examination, and bring the post-mortem reports and the doctors who conducted them into evidence. It also noted that material incriminating circumstances concerning identification and Binda Yadav’s alleged bullet injury had not been put to the accused during their examination under Section 313 CrPC. However, the Court did not accept that the doctors’ description of Pramod Kumar’s injuries as caused by an “explosive substance” necessarily ruled out firearm injuries.
Failure to hold a test identification parade does not make identification in court inadmissible. However, as a rule of prudence, an uncorroborated first-time identification after eight years is ordinarily unsafe to rely upon unless circumstances give special assurance of its reliability. No such circumstances were established here. Defective investigation alone does not justify acquittal, but the remaining evidence must independently and credibly establish the accused’s involvement. Since the evidence did not reliably establish the appellants’ identities, their involvement was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and they were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
