MADAN MOHAN SINGH v. STATE OF U. P. — 1985 DIGILAW 1126 (ALL)

V. P. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THE case is under Ss. 302 and 307 I. P. C. According to the first information report the main role is assigned to the present applicant, about whom it is said that Ashok Kumar Yadav and Kanak Singh alias Chhedi Singh took out his katta (country made pistol) and fired at the complainant and his associates with intention to kill. The result was that Vishun Deo Mishra, Baijnath, Pramod Tewari and Ramakant were injured. Vishun Deo Mishra fell down on the spot. Then the complainant and the witnesses challenged this accused, ran after him and Vijai Kumar tried to catch hold of him from his side, but the accused Chhedi Singh refilled his Katta and fired at Vijai Kumar who fell down injured. These two persons ultimately died. ( 2 ) BAIL is claimed on three grounds: Firstly it is contended that the accused-applicant moved the Court that he should be put up for identification, as the witnesses did not know him from before and his request has not been conceded and therefore he is entitled to bail because an element of suspicion against the prosecution case arises. 2a. The second point is that so far as the oral evidence of the witnesses is concerned, it is not in consonance with the medical evidence and so the prosecution case appears to be false. The third plea is that the accused has already suffered long detention in jail, since he is under arrest with effect from 25-11-1984 and except for a short parole that was granted to him, he is continuing in jail custody and it is almost one year that he is under detention and there has been no committal of the case as yet. ( 3 ) TAKING the first point a number of rulings have been cited in support of the contention that if the accused claims identification and the prosecution does not oblige him, an element of doubt will attach to the testimony of the witnesses and therefore the accused will be entitled to bail. In the case of Lajjaram v. State, AIR 1955 All 671 after considering the entire evidence of the case and the law laid down, the Court came to the following conclusions : (i) That it could not be said with respect to any of the three witnesses. . . . . . . . . In the case of Lajjaram v. State, AIR 1955 All 671 after considering the entire evidence of the case and the law laid down, the Court came to the following conclusions : (i) That it could not be said with respect to any of the three witnesses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . whose testimony the Sessions Judge relied for the conviction of the appellant, that they certainly knew the appellant from before; (ii) that the element of doubt attached to the testimony of these witnesses by reason of the omission of identification test subsisted and benefit of it went to the appellant. ( 4 ) IF we go through the facts of this case and law laid down, it will appear that the Court was of the opinion that the accused has no right to claim identification but if he claims it and the prosecution turns down his request for identification it runs the risk of the veracity of the eye-witnesses being challenged on that ground and exposes the claim of such witnesses to the criticism that the test identification was shirked because the witnesses would not have been able to stand that test. Unless, therefore the prosecution can nullify that criticism, there would be an element of doubt attaching to the testimony of these witnesses and its benefit will go to the accused. ( 5 ) IT may be clear from this that the accused can claim identification although he has no right to do so and if the prosecution refuses his request, it runs the risk of the veracity of witnesses being challenged on that ground. But this can be nullified. However, if it is not nullified, an element of doubt will attach to the testimony of the witnesses. This law nowhere lays down that if an accused demands holding of identification proceedings, his request must always be allowed and unless it is allowed, the prosecution case becomes unbelievable and should be discarded. Doubt will arise only if the prosecution evidence is unable to prove that the witnesses knew this accused from before by name or by face. This law nowhere lays down that if an accused demands holding of identification proceedings, his request must always be allowed and unless it is allowed, the prosecution case becomes unbelievable and should be discarded. Doubt will arise only if the prosecution evidence is unable to prove that the witnesses knew this accused from before by name or by face. ( 6 ) IN the case of Shri Ram v. State of U. P. , 1975 SC Cri R 3, the facts were that Shri Ram and Ram Chandra had moved an application that they were not known to the witnesses and therefore, they should be put up for identification. The Public Prosecutor objected. The Magistrate upheld the objection and refused to direct that a parade be held. It was held that the circumstances that Shri Ram had voluntarily accepted the risk of being identified in a parade but was denied that opportunity was an important point in his favour. It was further held that the testimony of witnesses even if not tested by holding an identification parade, can still be made the basis of conviction, if the request made by the accused is groundless and the witnesses knew the accused from before the occurrence. It was also held that there is no rule of law which requires that the oral testimony of a witness should be corroborated by evidence of identification which in itself is a weak type of evidence. In the case before the Supreme Court Shri Ram was acquitted and the High Court rejected the testimony of the witnesses who had named him as a culprit. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court was justifiably influenced by the consideration that though at the earliest stage he had asked that an identification parade be held, the demand was opposed by the prosecution and the parade was not held. This was one point in favour of Shri Ram. Again the sum and substance of this ruling will be that the accused has no right to claim the holding of an identification parade, but if he moves an application to that effect and his request is not conceded, ultimately the prosecution suffers the risk of having the testimony of its witnesses challenged. Again the sum and substance of this ruling will be that the accused has no right to claim the holding of an identification parade, but if he moves an application to that effect and his request is not conceded, ultimately the prosecution suffers the risk of having the testimony of its witnesses challenged. If factually a Court comes to the conclusion that the witnesses did not know the accused from before, it will necessarily follow that when the accused was not deliberately put up for identification in spite of his request, the substantial evidence of the witnesses in Court for the first time identifying him there in the light of the fact that they did not know him from before, will be suspicious and cannot be accepted. ( 7 ) IN the case of Suresh Chandra v: State, 1979 All Cri C 250 this Court laid down that when an accused claims identification, it should normally be allowed. The purpose is to lend assurance to the statements of the eye witnesses and to corroborate their statements from the result of identification proceedings. It was observed that an accused may or may not have a legal right to claim test identification and the holding of such identification may or may not be a rule of law, but it is a rule of prudence. Test identification parade must always be held when the accused definitely asserts that he was unknown to the prosecution witnesses either by name or by face. Even if his assertion is found to be false, no harm will be done if his test identification parade is ordered to be held because if in that parade the witnesses succeed in identifying him, it will increase the value of their evidence. If the accused is a stranger to the prosecution witnesses and he claims identification, his request in this regard must always be allowed because by holding test identification the veracity of the witnesses can be checked and by turning down the request, the prosecution runs the risk of challenge to the veracity of the eye witnesses. If the accused is a stranger to the prosecution witnesses and he claims identification, his request in this regard must always be allowed because by holding test identification the veracity of the witnesses can be checked and by turning down the request, the prosecution runs the risk of challenge to the veracity of the eye witnesses. A perusal of the case of Suresh Chandra (supra) will however show that the Court came to the conclusion on the basis of the testimony of the witnesses themselves, that they did not know the appellant from before and it was only after questioning him that they had come to know about his name. Obviously he was a stranger to them and so it was held that test-identification was necessary. The law laid down is not that in every case test identification parade is necessary. It is necessary only when the witnesses do not know the accused from before either by face or by name, but it will not be necessary at all when they knew him from before. ( 8 ) IN the case of Ramesh v. State of U. P. , 1985 All LJ 1125, this Court has held that accused has no right to demand his identification in a parade. A mere look at Chapter-XII of the Cr. P. C. and S. 9 of the Evidence Act will go to disclose that there is no provision in the Cr. P. C. entitling the accused to demand that he should be put up for identification either at the trial or before the enquiry. Identification parades are not held for giving defence advocates any material to work on. They belong to the stage of investigation and are meant to satisfy the Investigating Officers of the bona fides of the prosecution witnesses. The statements of identifiers at the test identification parade are not substantive evidence at the trial. They have only got corroborative value. The substantial evidence is the evidence recorded in the Court during the trial and the identification evidence only adds cogency to the testimony of the witnesses. The statements of identifiers at the test identification parade are not substantive evidence at the trial. They have only got corroborative value. The substantial evidence is the evidence recorded in the Court during the trial and the identification evidence only adds cogency to the testimony of the witnesses. If a witness unknown to the accused picks him up for the first time at the trial stage only after having failed to pick him up at the earlier test identification, and the Court is of the view that the witnesses did not know the accused from before and is for the first time seeking to identify him in the Court and the test identification was not held, the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses is lost. ( 9 ) THE ultimate result is that there is no law to lay down that in every case in which the accused applies for being put up for identification, the prosecution is bound to accept his request. Normally it should do so but if it refuses it takes the risk and the risk is that if the Court ultimately holds that the witnesses who are deposing against the accused did not know him from before, their testimony will have to be discarded because it will become suspicious in the absence of a previous test identification in spite of the request of the accused. If any contrary view is held it will mean that every accused charged of a crime which is heinous or otherwise, will put an application that he should be put up for test identification and if that application is not accepted then he will be entitled to take the plea that he should be acquitted because the prosecution evidence becomes suspicious. This cannot be the law. The prosecution evidence of the witnesses will have to be analysed and assessed and it will have to be decided whether the witnesses are to be accepted as truthful or whether they did not know the accused from before and for the first time they came to pick him up in Court or to name him, although he was not known to them by name or by face. Therefore, on this ground, the bail application cannot be granted. Therefore, on this ground, the bail application cannot be granted. Of course it will be for the prosecution to show at the trial that the witnesses knew the accused from before, otherwise it will suffer the risk which it has incurred on account of its failure to put the accused for the test identification. ( 10 ) IN parting I may also deal with the four other cases in which bails had been granted. Three of them are reported at page 640 of 1983 Allahabad Dand Nirnaya in the case of (i) Yogendra Murari Lal v. (sic); (2) Anil Sharma v. State of U. P. ; (3) Vinod v. State. In these three cases a mention has been made of the fact that the accused wanted to be put up for test identification and his request was denied but there is nothing in these rulings to show that this was the only ground on the basis of which bail was granted or that the Court ever held that because the prayer of the accused was not granted, hence the prosecution evidence had become unreliable, Similarly a certified copy of a bail order passed in Criminal Bail Application No. 6673 of 1984, Hariram v. State pertaining to Crime Case No. 227 of 1983 passed by this Court has been placed on the record. It was second bail application and supplementary affidavit had been filed on behalf of the accused. He had taken the plea that he wanted test identification to be held and the prosecution was not willing to do so. The Court took notice of the fact that the State had not filed any counter affidavit and under these circumstances bail was granted. Again there is no laying down of the law that bail should be granted or the accused should be acquitted if his prayer howsoever unjustified, it may be, for being put up for identification at test parade, is not conceded to. ( 11 ) SO far as the second point is concerned, I will only restrain myself by noting that the firing by the accused is said to have been resorted to by a country made pistol and not by a standard weapon and there is nothing on the record to show that even the cartridges that were used were standard cartridges and had not been filled up in empties of the standard guns. Under these circumstances at this stage of the proceedings any expression of opinion by this Court regarding the fact whether blackening and charring could be caused and whether the firing was made by two different persons from two different distances will only be embarrassing the trial that is to be held by the Sessions Judge. Suffice it to say that on this ground of discrepancy between the medical and oral evidence the accused is not entitled to any benefit. ( 12 ) THE third point is of some importance. The accused was arrested and was detained in jail since 25-11-1984. Almost a years time will pass within a few days and during this period he had been on parole for a short duration. The contention of the applicant that the case has not even been committed, is apparently wrong and is challenged by the prosecution. The learned State Counsel says that the case has already been committed to the Sessions Court. This fact also finds support from the order of the Sessions Judge. It was passed on 3-9-85 in which in para 7, the State Counsels argument that the police had already submitted charge-sheet, has been clearly mentioned. The question still remains that the accused has not his trial started during all this period. There is nothing on the record to show that he had been responsible for the delay. The state of affairs in the Courts of Uttar Pradesh is very well known. There is such huge backlog of cases that in spite of the best efforts the Courts are not in a position to dispose of the cases expeditiously and promptly. It is really unfortunate that this case has not come up for trial even after almost a year but for that the arrears lying in Courts and the lengthy procedure to be followed are to a greater part responsible. ( 13 ) THE nature of accusation of this case is that the accused is said to have committed double murder and the motive for it is extremely trivial. The nature of evidence in support of the accusation is of eye witnesses. Some of whom had received injuries on the spot and some others who were present on the spot, saw the accused committing this offence. In case a conviction results, the severity of the punishment need not be restated. The accused may be visited with death. The nature of evidence in support of the accusation is of eye witnesses. Some of whom had received injuries on the spot and some others who were present on the spot, saw the accused committing this offence. In case a conviction results, the severity of the punishment need not be restated. The accused may be visited with death. The only circumstance to be taken in to consideration is whether the accused would or would not abuse the bail if it is granted. ( 14 ) UNDER these circumstances, at this stage of the proceedings, bail cannot be granted to the accused but in order to ensure that a speedy trial takes place and the accused does not unnecessarily suffer behind the bars for delay in holding of the trial, it is hereby ordered that the Sessions Judge of Deoria shall ensure either by trying the case himself or transferring the case for trial to some other competent Additional Sessions Judge that the trial completes within a period of three months from today. If this does not happen, the accused will be free to apply for bail and his application may be considered. Order accordingly. .