Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: tip in Gomati @ Manoj vs State (Govt Of Nct) Of Delhi on 20 March, 2012Matching Fragments
9. Learned counsel submitted that the TIP of the accused was conducted after considerable time of their arrest, i.e. about 10 days later. In this connection, it was pointed out that the accused were all arrested on 04.02.2005, whereas the TIP was conducted on 15th February, 2005. The prosecution was unable to explain the delay and on the other hand, the deposition of PW-6 also showed that he had been called Crl.A. Nos.94, 783/2011 & 6/2012 Page 4 to the police station, before the TIP proceeding. In these circumstances, the TIP and so-called identification of some of the accused by the witness was suspect, particularly, when he did not describe any of them in any specific manner.
10. The Learned APP submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of PW-6, brother of the deceased, and the only eye-witness to the incident clearly establishes the guilt of the accused persons. PW-6 correctly identified accused Gomati and accused Deepak in the TIP proceedings (Ex.PW-6/E and Ex.PW-14/A) conducted by the Ld.MM at Tihar Jail. PW-14, Ms. Archna Sinha, Ld. MM in her deposition has stated that PW-6 was able to identify accused Gomati and accused Deepak in the TIP proceedings. Therefore there is no doubt as to the identity of the accused persons. Accused Dharambir refused to participate in the TIP and therefore an adverse inference had to be drawn. PW-6 in his deposition has stated that the three accused persons stabbed his brother and ran away. The testimony of PW-6 remained unshaken and there are no material discrepancies in his testimony and therefore there is no reason to disbelieve the eye-witness account.
25. So far as delay in holding TIP is concerned, the testimony of PW-14 Ms. Archana Sinha, the Magistrate, reveals that after the arrest of the accused, an application (Ex. PW12/A) for holding their TIP was moved. She deposed that the application was listed before her on 07.02.2005 and she confirmed to holding the TIP proceedings dated 15.02.2005 (Ex. PW 6E, PW- 6/F and PW-14/B) Those documents reveal that an application for conducting TIP had initially been filed on 05.02.2005 itself when it was marked to PW-12. She deposed that on 07.02.2005, the Court had scheduled the TIP for 15.02.2005. All the accused were produced from judicial custody; they had been remanded there since the earlier Crl.A. Nos.94, 783/2011 & 6/2012 Page 13 date i.e. 05.02.2005. Having regard to these facts, the appellants' argument about delay in TIP has no merit.
26. As far as identification by PW-6 of all the accused is concerned, there is no doubt that one refused to participate in the TIP and the other two were clearly identified during TIP. In any event all the accused were identified in the Court. It is a well established proposition that in a criminal trial dock identification of the accused is counted as evidence; the holding of the TIP which is part of the investigative process, and its outcome only lends assurance and rules out the false implication. There is, consequently no merit in the submission that identification of the accused was suspect due to delay in TIP.