It is incumbent on prosecution to hold ‘test identification parade’ where complainant does not know the persons who attacked him

High Court of Himachal Pradesh: While deciding a criminal revision petition filed against the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, a Single Judge Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan allowed the petition and acquitted the petitioner-accused from all the charges.

The allegation against the petitioner-accused was that he along with one other accused hit the complainant in the head with a stone. The accused denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty. However, the learned trial court convicted the petitioner-accused under Section 323 and 342 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that no test identification parade was held and as such there was procedural irregularity in the investigation and consequent conviction of the petitioner.

As regards the above mentioned contention of the petitioner, the High Court held that it was an admitted case of the prosecution that the complainant did not know the persons who attacked him and the accused were identified for the first time only in the Court as was evident from the statement of the witnesses. Once that be the admitted position, then it was incumbent upon the prosecution to have conducted a Test Identification Parade.

The High Court found merit in the revision petition and the same was allowed and the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court was set aside. [Sher Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2017 SCC OnLine HP 1460, order dated 3.10.2017]

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.