State Of Bihar vs Brahmdeo Prasad And Ors.
- SCC(1980) 3 SCC 411
- AIRAIR 1980 SC 551
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where identification evidence forms the basis of a conviction, and that evidence is tainted by significant infirmities—including identification from a long distance during night-time, failure to name the accused at the first opportunity, non-identification at a TI Parade, and identification for the first time in court—the appellate court may set aside the conviction and uphold an acquittal, as such identification cannot be regarded as free from reasonable doubt.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Patna High Court dated 19-3-1973 acquitting the respondents of the charges framed against them.
2. The respondents were convicted by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Patna under Section 302/149 Indian Penal Code and also other sections of I.P.C. As the Sessions Judge had sentenced Brahmdeo Prasad and Had Lal Prasad to death, a reference was made to the High Court for the confirmation of the sentence of death.
3. The facts of the case have been detailed in the judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary to repeat the same.
4. Mr. D.P. Singh, Counsel appearing for the State took us through the judgment of the High Court as also to the evidence of the main identifying witnesses. The High Court has detailed the infirmities which were found in the identification of the accused and has acquitted the respondents mainly on the ground that the identification of the accused was not free from doubt. Admittedly the occurrence took place during night and all the identifying witnesses appeared to have seen the accused from quite a long distance. Some of item did not know the accused and identified them in the Court for the first time. Other witnesses who know the accused did not disclose their names before the S.D.O at the first opportunity. There were other set of witnesses who failed to identify the respondent at a T I. Parade and identified them for the first time by face in the Court. The High Court has in a very scientific fashion categories to the identification of witnesses and given cogent reasons for not setting upon the identification of witnesses. Although Mr.Singh argued the case with great vehemense, yet after going through the judgment of the High Court and Sessions Judge, we are satisfied that it cannot be said in the circumstances that the view taken by the High Court was not reasonably possible. In fact, on the other hand, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. In the above circumstances, the appeal fails and is therefore dismissed.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free