Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. On 4th April 2007, at the raid conducted at hotel Sagar Inn in Bhadrak, A6, A7, A8, Tutu @ Mayanka Kumar, Masterjee @ Sunil Kumar (A9) were arrested and Rs.4 lakh of cash was seized along with weapons. Several other arrests took place of other accused on 10 th April, 2007.

13. Shri Partha Sarathi Pattnaik (PW-24) working as JMFC, Bhadrak conducted Test Identification Parade (TI Parade) in the Bhadrak jail premises on 5th March, 2007. Manas Kumar Panda (PW-7), Asutosh Sahu (PW-1), Sanat Kumar Majumdar (PW-10) and Ananta Gopal Das (PW-2) were the witnesses, who identified the present four Appellants. The TI parade in respect of A6, A7 and A8 was held on 11th April, 2007.

(ii) Based on the TI Parade, the evidence of PW 24 i.e. the Judicial Magistrate who conducted the TI Parade, and the evidence of PWs 1 and 7, it was proved that between 1 and 2 pm on 23rd February, 2007 there was a dacoity committed in front of the LIC office; the security guard was assaulted by gun and six persons including the four accused i.e., A-1, A-6, A-7 and A-8 were involved in the dacoity.

(iii) The evidence of PW 7 was very clear, cogent and trustworthy. There was no reason to discard the evidence on the question of participation of the four accused. Inasmuch as the spot map (Ext-35) does not, as explained by PW 32 (IO), reveal all the shops located around the LIC Office, the failure to locate the shop of PW 7 therein did not affect his evidence that it was in fact in front of the LIC Office.

28. The Court has carefully examined the testimonies of PWs 1, 2, 7 and 10 as well as that of PW 24, the JMFC who conducted the TI Parade. Neither the procedure for holding TI Parade has been able to be shown to be not in consonance with the legal requirement nor the actual identification of the Appellants by the aforementioned witnesses in the TI Parade been shown to be doubtful. In other words, the identity and the involvement of each of the present Appellants is more than adequately proved through the TI Parade.

TI Parade

29. It is then contended that two of the victims of the crime i.e. PWs 13 and 10 had not participated in the TI Parade to identify the Appellants and therefore, there was a reasonable doubt created over their involvement. Reliance is placed on the decision in Rahimal v. State of UP (1992) CriLJ 3819. It was further submitted that the TI Parade by itself cannot be substantive evidence under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Budhsen v. State of U.P. AIR 1970 SC 1321; Sheikh Hasib @ Tabarak v. State of Bihar AIR 1972 SC 283 and Sampat Tatyada Shinde v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1974 SC 791.