/2022 INSC 0978/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1864­1865 OF 2010
GIREESAN NAIR & ORS. ETC.                ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA             ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J. 
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the  High
Court of Kerala upholding the conviction of Accused Nos. 1­7, 9­
12,   14,   16   and   18   under   Sections   143,   147,   148   of   the   Indian
Penal Code, 1860 1
, and Sections 3(2)(e) of Prevention of Damages
to Public Property Act, 1984 2
, read with Section 149 of the IPC. A
sentence of four years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.
10,000,   as   imposed   by   the   Trial   Court 3
,  
was   also   upheld   by   the
High Court. 
1  hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’. 
2  hereinafter referred to as ‘the PDPP Act’.
3  Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track­1), Thiruvananthapuram in Case Nos. 
302 of 2001, 1786 of 2001 and 1313 of 2002 dated 15.02.2006.
1

2. Facts:   The   facts   of   the   present   case   can   be   traced   back   to
the   year   2000   when   the   State   of   Kerala   decided   to   delink   pre­
degree   courses   from   colleges   and   start   plus­two   courses   at   the
school   level.   There   were   protests   against   the   implementation   of
the   said   policy.   During   one   of   the   protests   on   12.07.2000,   it   is
alleged   that   the   police   officials   were   harsh,   and   several
protesters,   including   girl   students,   were   injured.   To   avenge   the
police   atrocity,   it   is   alleged   that   Accused   Nos.   1­2   and   25­33
hatched   a   conspiracy   to   launch  a  protest   the   next   day  to   create
fear and terror in the city. 
3. In   furtherance   of   the   alleged   conspiracy,   on   13.07.2000,
about   1500   protestors   armed   with   weapons   proceeded   towards
the   Government   Secretariat.   When   the   group   was   met   with
resistance from the police force, they became violent and caused
damage   to   as   many   as   81   buses   belonging   to   the   Kerala   State
Road   Transport   Corporation 4
.   A   few   protestors   even   went   inside
the   garage   of   KSRTC,   and   when   the   KSRTC   workers   repelled
them,   the   protestors   turned   even   more   violent,   leading   to   the
death of one Mr. Rajesh, a bus conductor with KSRTC. 
4  hereinafter referred to as ‘the KSRTC’. 
2

4. In the aftermath of this event, based on the statement given
by   Rajesh,   an   FIR   was   registered   by   PW­72   (head   constable)
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 149 of the IPC, Section 3(2)(e)
of   the   PDPP   Act   and   Sections   3   and   5   of   the   Explosive
Substances Act, 1908. As per the FIR, Accused Nos. 1­2 and 25­
33   hatched   a   conspiracy   and   abetted   acts   of   rioting.   The
Appellants herein and Accused Nos. 17 and 19 being part of the
mob,   formed   an   unlawful   assembly   which   resulted   in   riots   and
wide­scale destruction  of public property. Further, Accused Nos.
17 and 19 were also alleged to have caused the death of Rajesh. 
5. Investigation:   Pursuant   to   the   lodging   of   the   FIR,   PW­78,
Circle­inspector,   Fort   P.S.,   as   the   investigating   officer,   arrested
Accused   Nos.   1­16   on   13.07.2000.   Two   days   later,   the
investigation   was   handed   over   to   PW­76.   After   taking   over   the
baton,   PW­76   was   informed   that   Rajesh   had   succumbed   to   the
injuries.   Immediately   upon   receiving   that   information,   PW­76
proceeded to the hospital to conduct an inquest. After concluding
that   the   death   was   homicidal,   he   approached   the   concerned
court,   which   had   taken   cognizance   of   the   matter   to   alter   the
charge   under   Section   307   to   that   of   Section   302   of   the   IPC.
3

Considering   the   gravity   of   the   subject   and   wide­scale
repercussions,   the   Director   General   of   Police   constituted   a
Special   Investigation  Team   headed  by   PW­84,   the   then   Dy.  S.P.,
Narcotic   and   Economic   Offences   Cell,   CBCID,
Thiruvananthapuram.   After   taking   charge   of   the   investigation,
PW­84 arrested Accused Nos. 17­18 on 01.08.2000 and Accused
Nos.   19   on   04.08.2000.   It   is   PW­84   who   completed   the
investigation   and   filed   a   charge   sheet   before   the   Trial   Court.
However,   before   getting   into   the   details   of   the   charges   levelled
and the consequent decision of the Sessions Court, it is essential
to mention the two Test Identification Parades conducted by PW­
47,   Judicial   Magistrate   First   Class   –   IV,   Thiruvananthapuram,
which have a direct bearing on the final decision in this matter.
6. 1 st
  Test   Identification   Parade:   Conducting   a   Test
Identification   Parade 5
  was   crucial   for   the   prosecution   as   there
were more than 1500 people who were part of the mob, and only
a handful of them were arrested and charge­sheeted. It is for this
reason   that   the   IO   (PW­84)   submitted   a   report   before   the   Chief
Judicial   Magistrate 6
  and   sought   the   consent   of   the   CJM   for
conducting   a   TIP.   The   CJM   accepted   this   request   and,   by   his
5  hereinafter referred to as ‘TIP’.
6  hereinafter referred to as ‘CJM’.
4

order   dated   24.07.2000,   directed   PW­47   (JMFC­   IV,
Thiruvananthapuram)   to   conduct   a   TIP.   Accordingly,   PW­47
decided to conduct the TIP on 31.07.2000 for the identification of
Accused Nos. 1­16. 
7. To   protect   the   sanctity   of   the   TIP,   the   Judicial   Magistrate
(PW­47) is said to have instructed the IO (PW­84) to ensure that
the witnesses (who were later examined as PWs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and
7)   earmarked   for   the   TIP   do   not   get   any   opportunity   to   see   the
Accused   before   the   TIP.   For   conducting   the   TIP,   the   Judicial
Magistrate   (PW­47)   directed   the   IO   (PW­84)   to   arrange   forty
civilians   as   non­suspects.   The   IO   (PW­84)   could,   however,
arrange   only   for   thirty   non­suspects   being   twenty   police   officers
and   ten   civilians.   In   addition   to   these   thirty   non­suspects,   the
Judicial Magistrate (PW­47) is said to have shortlisted twenty­one
undertrials  to  participate  in  the  TIP.  However,  PW­47  decided  to
go ahead with only twenty­one undertrials and ten civilians. It is
his   version   that   he   made   an   effort   to   fetch   more   undertrials   for
the   TIP,   but   to   no   avail.   Ultimately,   he   conducted   the   TIP   by
mixing the sixteen accused with the thirty­one non­suspects. 
5

8. The   TIP   began   with   the   Judicial   Magistrate   (PW­47)   taking
note of the name, address, and other details of the non­suspects.
After   that,   the   suspects   and   non­suspects   were   mixed,   and
witnesses were asked to identify the Accused.  
9. After   the   conclusion   of   the   identification   process   for
Accused   Nos.   1­16,   the   non­suspects   were   asked   to   leave,   and
when   the   suspects   were   alone,   they   were   asked   if   they   had   any
complaints   about   how   the   TIP   was   conducted.   It   is   alleged   that
all   of   them   replied   in   the   negative.   However,   when   questioned   if
they had anything else to say, Accused No. 2, on behalf of all the
accused,   stated   that,   when   the   suspects   were   in   police   custody
from 20.07.2000 to 22.07.2000, they  were all photographed and
video­graphed and were also shown to all the six witnesses from
the cabin of the IO (PW­84). All this is evident from the “ Report of
the   Identification   Parade   of   the   16   Accused   Persons   dated
31.07.2000”. 
10.1   2 nd
  Test   Identification   Parade:   In   the   previous   TIP,   six
witnesses   identified   accused   1­16.   But   as   mentioned   earlier,
Accused Nos. 17­19 were arrested after the completion of the 1 st
TIP. In that view of the matter, permission to conduct the 2 nd
 TIP
6

was   sought   from   the   CJM   by   the   IO   (PW­84)   to   facilitate   the
identification of the Accused in three phases – (i) In the 1 st
 Phase
to   identify   Accused   Nos.   17­19   by   those   very   witnesses   who
identified Accused Nos. 1­16 in the 1 st
  TIP (PWs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and
7); (ii) In the 2 nd
 Phase to identify Accused Nos. 1­16 by PW’s 10,
11, 12 and 15; and (iii) In the 3 rd
  Phase to identify Accused Nos.
1­19 by PW’s 8, 9 and 33. After receiving the request from the IO
(PW­84),   the   CJM   granted   permission   and   directed   the   Judicial
Magistrate   (PW­47)   to   conduct   the   2 nd
  TIP.   Accordingly,   PW­47
decided to conduct the 2 nd
 TIP on 26.08.2000. The conduct of the
TIP in each of the phases is as under.  
10.2   In the 1 st
  Phase of this TIP, Accused Nos. 17­19, who were
to   be   identified,   were   mixed   with   sixteen   under­trial   non­
suspects.   After   the   identification   process   culminated,   Accused
No.19,   for   himself   and   the   other   two   accused,   stated   that   while
they   were   in   police   custody,   they   were   shown   to   the   six
witnesses,   PWs   1,   3,   4,   5,   6   and   7.   Further,   he   also   stated   that
they were all photographed and video­graphed and that they were
allowed to be seen by all the witnesses when they  were taken to
court for extending their remand.   
7

10.3  In the 2 nd
 Phase of the TIP, Accused Nos. 1­16 who were to
be identified were mixed with 45 non­suspects, with thirty­one of
them   being   under­trials   and   the   remaining   being   civilians.
Thereafter,   PWs   10,   11,   12   and   15   proceeded   with   the
identification. 
10.4   In   the   3 rd
  Phase   of   the   TIP,   Accused   Nos.   1­19   were   to   be
identified   by   PWs   8,   9   and   33.   For   identification,   the   Accused
were mixed with the pre­existing  45 non­suspects. After  the end
of  the  identification  process,   Accused  No.  2,  on  behalf of  others,
stated   that   when   Accused   Nos.   1­19   were   taken   to   court   for
remand,   and   the   presence   of   all   the   witnesses   was   arranged   in
the   court   by   the   police.   He   reiterated   that   while   they   were   in
police   custody,   they   were   photographed   and   video­graphed   and
were   also   made   to   be   seen   by   all   the   witnesses   from   the
chamber/cabin   of   the   IO   (PW­84).   All   the   Accused   collectively
stated that they were wearing the very same dress, straight from
their   arrest,   till   the   date   of   the   TIP.   All   this   is   evident   from   the
“ Report   of   the   Identification   Parade   of   the   19   Accused   Persons
dated 26.08.2000”. 
8

11. Thus,   it   can   be   seen   that   from   the   very   beginning,   the
Accused   had   objected   to   how   the   TIP   was   conducted   and   the
events   preceding   it,   which   inter­alia   included   –   (i)   the   Accused
being   shown   to   the   witnesses   from   the   cabin   of   the   IO   (PW­84);
(ii) the Accused being photographed and video­graphed while they
were in police custody; (iii) securing the presence of the witnesses
in   court   while   the   accused   were   produced   for   extension   of   their
remand;   and   (iv)   the   Accused   wearing   the   same   dress   straight
from their arrest till the date of the TIP. 
12. Upon   completion   of   the   investigation,   including   the   TIP   as
indicated   above,   charge   sheet   was   filed   on   23.09.2000,   and   the
case   was   committed   to   the   Court   of   Additional   District   and
Sessions   Judge   (Fast­track   Court   –   I),   Thiruvananthapuram,   on
27.10.2000. 
13. Sessions Court and High Court:  On 26.05.2005, the Sessions
Court framed charges under Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 324,
427, 506, 302, 109 and 111 r/w 149 of the IPC and Sections 3(2)
(e)   of   the   PDPP   Act   against   Accused   Nos.   1­33.   The   prosecution
examined   85   witnesses  and   marked  134   documents   as  exhibits.
Thereafter,   the   defence   examined   3   witnesses   and   marked   24
9

documents   as   exhibits.   After   hearing   the   matter   in   detail,   the
Sessions Court framed 12 points for consideration, which can be
broadly   classified   into   three   issues   (i)   conspiracy   hatched   by
Accused   Nos.   1­2   and   25­33;   (ii)   the   murder   of   Rajesh;   and   (iii)
the destruction of KSRTC buses and other public properties. 
14. Re:   Conspiracy   hatched   by   Accused   No.   1­2   and   25­33 :   To
establish a conspiracy   case against   Accused Nos. 1­2 and 25­33 ,
the   prosecution   examined   PW­68   and   PW­85.   PW­68,   who
deposed before the court that he had overheard the conversation
between   the   Accused   hatching   the   conspiracy.   PW­85,   on   the
other hand, turned hostile. Therefore, based on the deposition of
PW­68 , the Sessions Court convicted Accused Nos. 1­2 and 25­33
under   Sections   120B   of   the   IPC   r/w   Section   3(2)(e)   of   the   PDPP
Act, Sections 109 and 111 of the IPC, and sentenced them to four
years of imprisonment. In appeal, the High Court disbelieved PW­
68 and consequently set aside the conviction of Accused Nos. 1­2
and 25­33 under the abovementioned provisions. The decision of
the   High  Court   on   the   issue   of   conspiracy   against   Accused  Nos.
1­2 and 25­33 has attained finality as the State has not preferred
an appeal. 
10

15.  Re: Charge of the murder of Rajesh against Accused 17 and
19 :   In   so   far   as   the   issue   relating   to   the   charge   of   murder   of
Rajesh   against   Accused   Nos.   17   and   19   is   concerned;   the
prosecution   relied   upon   the   evidence   of   PWs   5,   6   and   8.   These
witnesses deposed that while Accused No. 17 beat Rajesh with an
iron pipe, Accused No. 19 beat him with a wooden reaper. Based
on the deposition of PWs 5, 6 and 8, the Sessions Court  convicted
Accused Nos. 17 and 19 under Sections 302 r/w 34 of the IPC for
life.   The   High   Court,   in   appeal,   set   aside   this   conviction   and
instead   found   them   guilty   under   Section   326   r/w   34   of   the   IPC
and   sentenced   them   to   7   years   of   rigorous   imprisonment.   The
finding  of the High Court on this issue has also attained finality
as   the   State   has   not   appealed   before   this   Court   against   the
altered   conviction   and   the   reduced   sentence.   In   fact,   even
Accused   Nos.   17   and   19   have   not   appealed   since   they   had
already served a sentence of seven years.
16. Given   the   findings   of   the   Trial   and   the   High   Court   on   the
issue   of   conspiracy   and   murder   attaining   finality,   the   only
question   that   falls   for   consideration   is   the   issue   relating   to   the
destruction   of   public   property.   In   fact,   this   is   the   only   question
11

that   was   raised   and   argued   before   us.   We   will   now   proceed   to
examine this aspect in detail. 
17.  Re:   Charge   of   the   destruction   of   public   property   against
Accused   Nos.   1­7,   9­12,   14,   16   and   18   under   Sections   143,   147,
148   of   the   IPC   and   Sections   3(2)(e)   of   the   PDPP   Act   r/w   Section
149   of   the   IPC :   To   establish   the   charge   of   destruction   of   public
property, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs 5, 6, 8,
31 and 33, as eye­witnesses to the crime. To prove the presence
of these witnesses, the prosecution had to necessarily rely on the
TIP   proceedings.   The   defence   questioned   the   TIP   on   various
grounds,   among   other   things,   the   presence   of   IO   (PW­84)   at   the
time of conducting the TIP, the accused being photographed and
video­graphed while they were in police custody, among others. 
18. The Sessions Court rejected all the objections to the legality
and   credibility   of   the   TIP   by   holding   that   (i)   the   IO   (PW­84)   was
just present and did not influence the TIP in any manner; (ii) the
imbalance in the ratio between suspects and non­suspects in the
TIP   is   not   the   Judicial   Magistrate’s   (PW­47)   or   the   IO’s   (PW­84)
fault,   because   they   tried   their   best   to   fetch   more   non­suspects;
(iii) the IO (PW­84) took steps to prevent disclosure of identity  of
12

accused   to   witnesses   before   the   TIP   by   covering   the   side   of   the
vehicle   in   which   they   were   brought   to   the   court   for   extension  of
remand,   though,   he   also   stated   that   he   did   not   put   a   mask   on
them; (iv) there is no material to show that photographs or video­
graphs   of   the   Accused   were   taken   and   shown   to   the   witnesses
prior to the TIP; and (v) even though PW­3 and PW­4 admitted in
cross­examination   before   the   Court   that   some   of   the   accused
were shown to them  before the TIP, during re­examination, both
of   them   frankly   admitted   that   after   the   incident,   they   had   seen
the   miscreants   for   the   first   time   during   the   TIP.   In   view   of   its
conclusions   on   the   TIP,   the   Trial   Court   proceeded   to   convict
Accused Nos. 1­7, 9­12, 14, 16­19 under Sections 143, 147, 148
IPC   and   3(2)(e)   of   PDPP   Act   r/w   149   of   the   IPC   and   sentenced
them to four years of imprisonment. 
19. The   High   Court   has,   while   exercising   criminal   appellate
jurisdiction,   failed   to   consider   any   of   the   submissions   made   by
the   Appellants   on   the   legality   or   the   integrity   of   the   TIP.   The
following passage is the only discussion on this argument:
“43.   …..   The   Court   below   has   made   its   finding
regarding   the   offence   punishable   under   Ss.143,   147
and 148 IPC and S.3(2)(e) of the PDPP Act, based on the
identification   of   the   various   witnesses   in   court.   The
matter   has   been   dealt   with   elaborately   by   the   Court
13

below. It is idle for the appellants to say that there was
no   proper   identification   and   so,   it   was   not   possible   to
say,   who  had  caused   obstruction  to   the   KSRTC   buses.
Moreover,   when   a   group   of   persons   cause   damage   to
public   properties,   each   one   of   that   illegal   group   will   be
held   liable   for   the   acts   of   the   other   members   in   the
group also.”
In   view   of   the   above,   the   High   Court   upheld   the   conviction   of
Accused Nos. 1­7, 9­12, 14, 16­19 under Sections 143, 147, 148
IPC   and   3(2)(e)   of   PDPP   Act   r/w   149   of   the   IPC   and   also   the
sentence of  four  years imprisonment  imposed upon  them  by  the
Sessions Court.   Therefore, the learned counsel for the Appellants
were   justified   in   contending   that   the   High   Court   has   not
considered the submissions of the Appellants on law and on fact.
The   High   Court,   while   exercising   criminal   appellate   jurisdiction
under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has
to necessarily assess the evidence on record with a view to satisfy
itself   that   the   appreciation   of   evidence   by   the   Trial   Court   is   not
vitiated   by   any   illegality   and   is   not   palpably   erroneous.   The
dismissal of appeal without considering an appellant’s contention
is   a   serious   infirmity,   which   will   result   in   no   legal   judgment   in
the eye of law 7
. 
7   Sohan   and   Anr.   v.   State   of   Haryana   and   Anr.   (2001)   3   SCC   620;   State   of   Rajasthan   v.
Hanuman (2001) 1 SCC 337; Badri and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (2000) 10 SCC 246.
14

20. Submissions   of   the   Parties :   Ms.   Sonia   Mathur,   learned
Senior   Advocate   appearing   for   Accused   Nos.   1­7,   9,   14,   16   and
18,   at   the   very   outset,   contended   that   the   High   Court   has   not
rendered   any   independent   finding   on   the   issue   of   destruction   of
public   property   and   has   merely   reiterated   what   the   Sessions
Court had held. 
21. Be   that   as   it   may,   the   central   thrust   of   Ms.   Mathur’s
submission was on the manner in which the TIP was conducted.
According to her, the TIP was of utmost importance, considering
that   this   was   a   case   where   criminal   liability   was   fastened   only
against   a   few   protestors.   She   raised   questions   over   the   integrity
of the TIP by contending that (i)  the ideal ratio of suspects to non­
suspects as laid down by the Kerala High Court in   Pradeepan v.
State   of   Kerala 8
,     has   not   been   followed;   (ii)   the   presence   of   IO
(PW­84)   in   the   premises   of   central   jail   during   both   the   TIPs
vitiates the TIP in its entirety; (iii) the IO ( PW­47) in both the TIPs
did   not   record   physical   features,   age   etc.   of   the   non­suspects.
The   learned   senior   counsel   gave   an   example   by   stating   that
Accused No. 7 had a long beard, but there were no non­suspects
having   a   long   beard;   (iv)   the   IO   (PW­84)   has   admitted   that
8  (2005) 3 KLT 1075.
15

Accused   Nos.   1­16   were   in   his   custody   when   he   questioned   the
eyewitnesses in his office; (v) PW­3 and PW­4 have admitted that
they had seen the Accused while they were at the Police Station;
(vi)   PW­1,   PW   8­12   and   PW­33   have   admitted   that   they   had
identified the Accused in the TIP based on the pictures they saw
in   the   newspaper;   (vii)   the   Accused   had   complained   that   while
they  were in  police custody, they  were photographed and  shown
to   the   witnesses   from   the   cabin   of   PW­84;   (viii)   Remand   Report
dated   14.07.2000   clearly   stated   that   Accused   Nos.   1­16   were
shown to the eye­witnesses; (ix) there has been a delay in holding
in   the   TIP   which   is   fatal,   in   light   of   the   decision   in
Acharaparambath   Pradeepan   and   Anr.   v.   State   of   Kerala 9
,   Lal
Singh   and   Ors.   v.   State   of   UP 10
  and   Shaikh   Umar   Ahmed   Shaikh
and Anr.   v.   State of Maharashtra 11
; and (x) no importance can be
given to the identification made in the TIP when the same witness
fails   to   identify   the   same   accused   before   the   court.   For   this
purpose,   reliance   was   placed   on   the   judgement   of   this   Court   in
Lalli   alias   Jagdeep   Singh   v.   State   of   Rajasthan 12
.   Independent   of
her submissions on the aspect of TIP, the learned senior advocate
9   (2006) 13 SCC 643
10   (2003) 12 SCC 554
11   (1998) 5 SCC 103
12   (2003) 12 SCC 666
16

also   relied   upon   the   decision   of   the   Delhi   High   Court   in   Capitol
Art   House   (P)   Ltd   v.   Neha   Datta 13
,   where   it   was   held   that   re­
examination   of   witnesses   should   not   be   allowed,   especially   to
facilitate   them   to   rectify   their   mistakes.   This   submission   was
made in the context of PW­3 and PW­4s contradictory statements
made in the chief examination and the re­examination. 
22. Shri   Vinay   Navare,   learned   Senior   Advocate   appearing   for
Accused Nos. 10­12 contended that the statements given by PW­
5, PW­6 and PW­8 could not form the basis of conviction because
(i)  PW­5 had  stated in  his deposition  that  he was  not  present  at
the   time   of   the   incident   and   that   he   reached   the   place   of
occurrence   only   after   the   incident;   (ii)   PW­6   could   only   identify
Accused   Nos.   17   and   19   and   could   generally   identify   the   other
accused   as   the   agitators;   (iii)   PW­8   had   stated   in   his   deposition
that he identified the Accused on the basis of the images he saw
in a newspaper.  
23. Shri   Navare   also   raised   questions   over   how   the   TIP   was
conducted by submitting that (i) the purpose of conducting a TIP
fails when pictures of the accused are published in newspapers.
He   relied   upon   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   Ravi   alias
13  (2022) SCC OnLine Del 1746
17

Ravichandran   v.   State   represented   by   Inspector   of   Police 14
,   where
this   Court   had   held   that   no   importance   could   be   attached   to   a
TIP where the photos of the alleged suspects were making rounds
in newspapers and also when the witnesses had a chance to look
at   the   accused   while   the   accused   were   in   police   custody.
Additionally,   he   also   placed   reliance   on   the   judgement   of   this
Court   in   Shaikh   Umar   Ahmed   Shaikh   and   Anr.   v.   State   of
Maharashtra (supra)  to bolster his submission on the same point ;
(ii)   the ratio of suspects to non­suspects was improper  in the 1 st
TIP;   (iii)   the   IO   (PW­84)   was   present   in   the   hall   where   both   the
TIPs took place; (iv) there was a delay of over one month between
the date of the incident and the dates of the TIP, which facilitated
the   investigation   officer   to   acclimatise   the   witnesses   to   the   way
the   Accused’s   look.   He   relied   upon   the   decision   of   this   Court   in
Suresh   Chandra   Bahri   v.   State   of   Bihar 15
  where   it   has   been   held
that   a   TIP   has   to   be   conducted   at   the   earliest   possible
opportunity;   and   (v)   the   identification   made   by   PW­5,   PW­6   and
PW­8   are   of   no   consequence   as   they   are   not   an   independent
witness. 
14   (2007) 15 SCC 372
15  (1995) Supp 1 SCC 80
18

24. Shri Harshad V. Hameed, learned counsel appearing for the
State, countered the submissions made regarding the conduct of
the TIP by contending that – (i) the decision in  Pradeepan  v.  State
of Kerala 16
, is not binding. The same were mere guidelines which
could   be   adjusted   based   on   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   a
case. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Kerala High
Court   in   Mohanan   Nair   v.   State   of   Kerala 17
,   to   support  the   same
point; (ii)  a TIP  can be accepted as a  piece  of evidence based  on
the subjective satisfaction of a court, which has occurred in this
case;   (iii)   if   there   were   concerns   about   the   manner   in   which   the
TIP   was   conducted,   then   the   TIP   itself   should   have   been
challenged.   In   that   view   of   the   matter,   it   was   submitted   that
when   it   has   not   been   challenged,   then   under   Section   80   of   the
Indian   Evidence   Act,   1872,   a   presumption   arises   that   the   TIP
Report   is   a   valid   proof   of   evidence;   (iv)   the   JFMC   (PW­47)   took
every measure within his reach to ensure smooth conduct of the
TIP; (v) the IO (PW­84) took all possible measures to ensure that
the   TIP   is   conducted   at   the   earliest   possible   opportunity;   (vi)
reliance   was   placed   on   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
16    Supra  No. 8
17  (1989) Cr.L.J. 2106 (Ker)
19

Munna   Kumar   Upadhyay   v.   State   of   Andhra   Pradesh 18
,   where   it
was   held   that   if   pictures   of   the   suspects   were   circulated   in
newspapers   months   before   the   TIP   is   conducted,   then   the
circulation   would   have   lost   its   effect   on   the   minds   of   the
witnesses;   (vii)   the   Sessions   Court   has   only   convicted   those
accused, who were identified both before the Court as well as in
the TIP. The testimony of these eyewitnesses never suffered from
any   infirmities;   and  (viii)   the  evidence   of   PW­5,  PW­6  and   PW­8,
which was relied upon by the Trial Court, was not biased. 
25. Analysis :   Heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   and
perused   the   case   records.   We   may,   at   the   outset,   note   that   the
eyewitnesses   questioned   by   the   prosecution   did   not   give   out   the
names   or   identities   of   the   Accused   participating   in   the   riot   and
involved   in   the   destruction   of   public   property.   Therefore,   the   IO
(PW­84)   had   to   necessarily   conduct   a   TIP.   The   object   of
conducting   a   TIP   is   threefold.   First ,   to   enable   the   witnesses   to
satisfy   themselves  that  the   accused  whom  they  suspect  is  really
the   one   who   was   seen   by   them   in   connection   with   the   crime.
Second , to satisfy the investigating authorities that the suspect is
the real person whom the witnesses had seen in connection with
18  (2012) 6 SCC 174
20

the   said   occurrence.   Third,   to   test   the   witnesses’   memory   based
on first impression and enable the prosecution to decide whether
all   or   any   of   them   could   be   cited   as   eyewitnesses   to   the   crime
( Mulla and Anr.   v.   State of U.P. 19
).
26. TIPs   belong   to   the   stage   of   investigation   by   the   police.   It
assures that  investigation  is proceeding  in  the right  direction.  It
is   a   rule   of   prudence   which   is   required   to   be   followed   in   cases
where   the   accused   is   not   known   to   the   witness   or   the
complainant   ( Matru   alias   Girish   Chandra   v.   State   of   U.P. 20
;
Mulla   and   Anr.   v.   State   of   U.P. 21
  and   C.   Muniappan   and   Ors.   v.
State of Tamil Nadu 22
) .   The evidence of a TIP is admissible under
Section   9   of   the   Indian   Evidence   Act.   However,   it   is   not   a
substantive   piece   of   evidence.   Instead,   it   is   used   to   corroborate
the evidence given by witnesses before a c ourt of law at the time
of trial. Therefore,   TIPs, even if held, cannot be considered in all
the cases as trustworthy evidence on which the conviction of an
accused   can   be   sustained   ( State   of   H.P.   v .   Lekh   Raj   and   Anr. 23
;
and  C. Muniappan and Ors  v.  State of T.N. 24
) .  
19  (2010) 3 SCC 508 (Paras 44, 45 and 55)
20   (1971) 2 SCC 75 (Para 17)
21   Supra No.19  (Paras 41 and 43).
22   (2010) 9 SCC 567 (Para 42)
23   (2000) 1 SCC 247 (Para 3)
24   Supra No. 22 (Para 42)
21

27. I t is a matter of great importance both for the investigating
agency   and   for   the   accused   and   a   fortiori   for   the   proper
administration of justice that a TIP is held without avoidable and
unreasonable delay after the arrest of the accused. This becomes
necessary to eliminate the possibility of the accused being shown
to   the   witnesses   before   the   test   identification   parade.   This   is   a
very common plea of the accused, and therefore, the prosecution
has   to   be   cautious   to   ensure   that   there   is   no   scope   for   making
such an allegation. If, however, circumstances are beyond control
and   there   is   some   delay,   it   cannot   be   said   to   be   fatal   to   the
prosecution. But reasons should be given as to why there was a
delay ( Mulla   and Anr.  v.   State of U.P. 25
 and  Suresh Chandra Bahri
v.  State of Bihar 26
).
28. I n   cases where the witnesses have had ample opportunity to
see   the   accused   before   the   identification   parade   is   held,   it   may
adversely   affect   the   trial.   It   is   the   duty   of   the   prosecution   to
establish   before   the   court   that   right   from   the   day   of   arrest,   the
accused   was   kept   “baparda”   to   rule   out   the   possibility   of   their
face being seen while in police custody. If the witnesses had the
25   Supra No.19 (Para 45)
26   Supra No.15
22

opportunity to see the accused before the TIP, be it in any form,
i.e.,   physically,   through   photographs   or   via   media   (newspapers,
television   etc…),   the   evidence   of   the   TIP   is   not   admissible   as   a
valid   piece   of   evidence   ( Lal   Singh   and   Ors   v .   State   of   U.P. 27
  and
Suryamoorthi and Anr.  v.  Govindaswamy and Ors. 28
) . 
29. If identification in the TIP has taken place after the accused
is   shown   to   the   witnesses,   then   not   only   is   the   evidence   of   TIP
inadmissible,   even   an   identification   in   a   court   during   trial   is
meaningless   ( Shaikh   Umar   Ahmed   Shaikh   and   Anr.   v.   State   of
Maharashtra   29
).  Even a TIP conducted in the presence of a police
officer   is   inadmissible   in   light   of   Section   162   of   the   Code   of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( Chunthuram   v.   State of Chhattisgarh 30
and  Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma   v.   State of Bombay 31
) . 
30. It   is   significant   to   maintain   a   healthy   ratio   between
suspects and non­suspects during a TIP. If rules to that effect are
provided   in   Prison   Manuals   or   if   an   appropriate   authority   has
issued guidelines regarding the ratio to be maintained, then such
rules/guidelines shall be followed. The officer conducting the TIP
27   Supra No.10
28   (1989) 3 SCC 24
29  Supra No.11
30   (2020) 10 SCC 733
31   (1955) 1 SCR 903
23

is   under   a   compelling   obligation   to   mandatorily   maintain   the
prescribed ratio.  While conducting a TIP, it is a  sine­qua­non  that
the   non­suspects   should   be   of   the   same   age­group   and   should
also   have   similar   physical   features   (size,   weight,   color,   beard,
scars,   marks,   bodily   injuries   etc.)   to   that   of   the   suspects.   The
concerned   officer   overseeing   the   TIP   should   also   record   such
physical   features   before   commencing   the   TIP   proceeding.   This
gives credibility to the TIP and ensures that the TIP is not just an
empty formality ( Rajesh Govind Jagesha  v.  State of Maharashtra 32
and  Ravi  v.  State 33
). 
31. It is  for   the prosecution  to  prove that  a  TIP was  conducted
in   a   fair   manner   and   that   all   necessary   measures   and
precautions   were   taken   before   conducting   the   TIP.   Thus,   the
burden   is   not   on   the   defence.   Instead,   it   is   on   the   prosecution
( Rajesh Govind Jagesha  v.  State of Maharashtra 34
). 
32. We will now consider the three major contentions raised by
the   Appellants   before   us,   being   (i)   the   credibility   of   the   eye­
witnesses who participated in the TIP to identify the accused; (ii)
delay   in   conducting   the   TIP;   and   (iii)   legality   of   the   TIP   and   the
32   (1999) 8 SCC 428
33   Supra No.14
34   Supra No.32 (Para 4)
24

presence   of   the   IO   during   the   conduct   of   the   TIP.   We   will   now
consider each of these submissions.
33. Re:     Credibility   of   the   eyewitnesses   who   participated   in   the
TIP to identify the accused :  
34. PW­3,   in   his   deposition   before   the   Sessions   Court,   stated
that:
  “ Prior   to   the   date   of   identification   parade,   I   had
been to the Cr i me   Branch office on different days . 
(Q).  Were there 10­18 accused at t i me of first parade.
(A). So many people were there.
(Q).   Were   some   of   the   accused   shown   to   you   from   the
crime branch office 
(A). They were shown 
 (Q). Were some more of the accused were shown to you
before going to the 2 nd
 parade
(A) .  Yes”
35 . PW­4,   in   his   deposition   before   the   Sessions   Court,   has
stated that:
“I went to Crime Branch office for giving statement.
That was 8­10 days prior to the first parade .
(Q).   When   you   went   there   to   give   your   next   statement
did they show you some of the accused 
(A) .  They were there  
(Q). After the first parade   I   have given statement to   the
Crime   Branch.   That   was   before   2 nd
  parade.   Did   they
show you the accused at   that time 
(A) .   They   were   there.   Thus,   those   persons   I   saw   or
shown  to  me were identified at the time of parade. ” 
25

36. Both   these   witnesses,   during   their   re­examination,   have,
however,   contradicted   themselves   by   stating   that   they   saw   the
Accused for the first time during the TIP. 
37. In so far as PW­5 is concerned, his presence at the scene of
the   offence   and   seeing   the   Accused   committing   the   offence   is   in
serious doubt. During his cross­examination, he stated that 
“(Q).  Did you go and see the place of incident.
(A)   I   went   there   at   the   place   of   occurrence   after   the
incident. Then I saw three employees. Altogether, there
were   10­20   persons   including   who   stood   outside   the
office and at the place of occurrence. 
(Q). Did you ask them about the incident. 
(A) No. 
(Q).   Did   you   reach   there   only   after   accused   left   the
place. 
(A). Yes” 
38. PW­6,   whose   evidence   has   been   relied   upon   by   the
prosecution, has also stated that he had visited the crime branch
office   eleven   days   prior   to   the   1 st
  TIP,   i.e.,   on   20.07.2000.   This
date   coincided   with   the   date   when   the   Accused   were   also   taken
into   police   custody.   On   the   other   hand,   PW­8,   whose   evidence
has   also   been   relied   upon   by   the   prosecution,   has   stated   in   his
deposition that he identified the Accused in the TIP based on the
pictures published in a newspaper. 
26

39. PW­31,   an   employee   of   KSRTC,   has   deposed   only   on   the
financial   loss   caused   to   KSRTC   because   of   the   destruction.   His
deposition is not helpful to fasten any liability on the Accused. 
40. The last witness relied upon by the prosecution to prove the
charge   of   destruction   of   public   property   was   PW­33.   However,
this   witness   turned   hostile.   Therefore,   his   deposition   takes   us
nowhere. 
41. Proceeding to the deposition of the Judicial Magistrate (PW­
47),   he   was   asked,   if   before   commencing   the   parade,   he   had
asked   any   of   the   witnesses   whether   they   had   any   prior
acquaintance   with   the   suspects   or   non­suspects   or   whether   the
suspects or non­suspects were shown to them by the IO (PW­84) .
PW­47   stated   that   he   did   not   ask   any   such   question   to   the
suspects   before   commencing   the   parade.   However,   he   said   that
he   asked   the   suspects   at   the   end   of   the   parade   if   they   had   any
objection to the manner in which the TIP was conducted. It may
be   recounted   that   Accused   No.   2   had   objected   that   they   were
shown to the witnesses while they were in police custody. 
27

42. This   Court   in   Budhsen   and   Anr.   v.   State   of   UP 35
,   had
directed   that   sufficient   precautions   have   to   be   taken   to   ensure
that the witnesses who are to  participate in  the  TIP do not  have
an opportunity to see the accused before the TIP is conducted.  In
Lal Singh  v.  State of U.P. 36
,   this Court had held that a trial would
be   adversely   affected   when   the   witnesses   have   had   ample
opportunity to see the accused before the identification parade is
held.   It   was   held   that   the   prosecution   should   take   precautions
and   establish   before   the   court   that   right   from   the   day   of   his
arrest, the accused was kept “baparda” to rule out the possibility
of   his   face   being   seen   while   in   police   custody.   Later,   in
Lalli   v.   State   of   Rajasthan 37
  and   Maya   Kaur   Baldevsingh   Sardar
and   Anr.   v.   State   of   Maharashtra 38
,   this   Court   has   categorically
held   that   where   the   accused   has   been   shown   to   the   witness   or
even his photograph has been shown by  the investigating  officer
prior to a TIP, holding an identification parade in such facts and
circumstances remains inconsequential. Another crucial decision
was   rendered   by   this   Court   in   Shaikh   Umar   Ahmed   Shaikh   and
Anr.  v.  State of Maharashtra   39
, where it was held:
35   (1970) 2 SCC 128
36  Supra No.10
37   Supra No.12
38   (2007) 12 SCC 654
39   Supra No.11
28

“ 8. ….   But, the question arises: what value could be
attached   to   the   evidence   of   identity   of   accused   by   the
witnesses in the Court when the accused were possibly
shown to the witnesses before the identification parade
in the police station. The Designated Court has already
recorded a finding that there was strong possibility that
the suspects were shown to the witnesses.   Under such
circumstances, when  the   accused   were  already  shown
to the witnesses, their identification in the Court by the
witnesses   was   meaningless .   The   statement   of
witnesses   in   the   Court   identifying   the   accused   in   the
Court lost all its value and could not be made the basis
for   recording   conviction   against   the   accused.   The
reliance   of   evidence   of   identification   of   the   accused   in
the Court by PW 2 and PW 11 by the Designated Court,
was   an  erroneous  way  of  dealing  with  the   evidence  of
identification   of   the   accused   in   the   Court   by   the   two
eyewitnesses   and   had   caused   failure   of   justice.   Since
conviction  of  the  appellants  have  been  recorded  by  the
Designated   Court   on   wholly   unreliable   evidence,   the
same deserves to be set aside.”
43. In so far as evidence of PW­8 is concerned, who has stated
that   he   identified   the   accused   in   the   TIP   based   on   pictures
published in newspapers, the position of law is clear. This Court
in  Suryamoorthi  v . Govindaswamy 40
, has held as follows:
“ 10.   Two identification parades were held in the course
of   investigation.   At   the   first   identification   parade   PW   1
identified all the seven accused persons whereas PW 2
identified   three   of   them,   namely,   Accused   2,   6   and   7
alone.   It   is,   however,   in   evidence   that   before   the
identification parades were held the photographs of the
accused   persons   had   appeared   in   the   local   daily
newspapers . Besides, the accused persons were in the
lock­up for a few days before the identification parades
were   held   and   therefore   the   possibility   of   their   having
been   shown   to   the   witnesses   cannot   be   ruled   out
altogether.   We   do   not,   therefore,   attach   much
importance   to   the   identification   made   at   the
identification parades .”
40   Supra No.28
29

Reiterating   the   same   principle,  this   Court  in   Ravi   v.   State 41
,   has
again reaffirmed the aforesaid position by holding as follows:
“ 17.   Certain   facts   are   not   in   dispute.   The   test
identification parade was held after ten days.   It is also
not in dispute that the photographs of the accused were
taken   at   the   police   station.   The   investigation   officer
allowed   them   to   be   published.   Photographs   of   the
appellant   and   the   said   Udayakumar   were   not   only
published, according to the prosecution witnesses, they
were   shown   to   be   the   accused   in   the   aforementioned
crime. Some of them admittedly were aware of the said
publication .   The   purported   test   identification   parade
which   was   held   ten   days   thereafter,   in   our   opinion,
looses   all   significance,   in   the   aforementioned   fact
situation.
19.   In a case of this nature, it was incumbent upon the
prosecution   to   arrange   a   test   identification   parade.
Such test identification parade was   required to be held
as   early   as   possible   so   as   to   exclude   the   possibility   of
the  accused  being identified either at  the police station
or   at   some   other   place   by   the   witnesses   concerned   or
with   reference   to   the   photographs   published   in   the
newspaper.   A   conviction   should   not   be   based   on   a
vague identification.”
44. Having considered the evidence of crucial eye­witnesses and
the   material   indicating   the   conduct   of   the   TIP,   we   are   of   the
opinion   that   the   witnesses   had   the   opportunity   of   seeing   the
accused   before   the   conduct   of   the   TIP.     Not   only   have   the
witnesses   deposed   that   they   had   seen   the   suspects   before   the
TIP,   even   Accused   No.   2,   at   the   end   of   the   1 st
  TIP,   had   raised   a
grievance that the suspects were  all photographed, video­graphed
and   were   shown   to   the   witnesses   from   the   cabin   of   the   IO   (PW­
41  Supra No.14
30

84).   At   the   end   of   the   2 nd
  TIP,   he   had   also   stated   that   when
Accused   Nos.   1­19   were   taken   to   court   for   the   purpose   of
remand,   and   the   presence   of   all   the   witnesses   was   arranged   in
the court by the police. In fact, all the Accused collectively stated
that   they   were   wearing   the   very   same   dress,   straight   from   their
arrest,   till   the   date   of   the   TIP   to   indicate   that   the   TIP   did   not
serve   its   purpose.   We   find   no   reason   to   disbelieve   the
truthfulness   of   the   statement   of   the   Accused   because   they   had
raised   this   contention   right   from   the   beginning   and   have
maintained it all along.   
45. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that there existed
no   useful   purpose   behind   conducting   the   TIP.   The   TIP   was   a
mere formality, and no value could be attached to it. As the only
evidence for  convicting the appellants is the evidence of the eye­
witnesses in the TIP, and when the TIP is vitiated, the conviction
cannot   be   upheld.   We   will   now   examine   the   other   lapses   while
conducting the TIPs. 
46. Re: Delay in conducting the TIP :   Undue delay in conducting a
TIP   has   a   serious   bearing   on   the   credibility   of   the   identification
process.   Though   there   is   no   fixed   timeline   within   which   the   TIP
31

must   be   conducted   and   the   consequence   of   the   delay   would
depend   upon   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case 42
,   it   is
imperative   to   hold   the   TIP   at   the   earliest.   The   possibility   of   the
TIP witnesses seeing the accused is sufficient to cast doubt about
their   credibility.   The   following   decisions   of   this   Court   on   the
consequence of delay in conducting TIP have emphasised that the
possibility   of   witnesses   seeing   the   accused   by   itself   can   be   a
decisive   factor   for   rejecting   the   TIP.   In   Suresh   Chandra   Bahri   v.
State of Bihar 43
,   it was held that:
“It   is   a   matter   of   great   importance   both   for   the
investigating agency and for the accused  and  a fortiori
for   the   proper   administration   of   justice   that   such
identification   is   held   without   avoidable   and
unreasonable delay after the arrest of the accused and
that all the necessary precautions and safeguards were
effectively   taken   so   that   the   investigation   proceeds   on
correct   lines   for   punishing   the   real   culprit.   It   is   in
adopting this course alone that justice and fair play can
be   assured   both   to   the   accused   as   well   as   to   the
prosecution. But the position may be different when the
accused or a culprit who stands trial had been seen not
once but for quite a number of times at different point of
time   and   places   which   fact   may   do   away   with   the
necessity of a TIP.”  
47. In   Budhsen & Anr. v. State of UP 44
,   this Court set aside the
conviction imposed on the appellant therein, on the ground that
no conviction can be based by solely relying on the identification
42  Supra No.9
43  Supra No.15
44  Supra No. 35
32

made   in   a   TIP.   While   holding   that   a   14­day   delay   by   itself   in
conducting   the   TIP   may   not   cause   prejudice   to   the   accused,   it
observed that there is a high chance of accused being seen by the
identifying   witnesses   outside   the   jail   premises.   In   Subash   and
Shiv   Shankar   v.   State   of   U.P. 45
,   this   Court   acquitted   an   accused
on the ground that the TIP was held three weeks after the arrest
was made. This Court suspected that the delay in holding the TIP
could   have   enabled   the   identifying   witnesses   to   see   the   accused
therein   in   the   police   lock­up   or   in   the   jail   premises.   In   State   of
A.P.   v.   Dr   M.V.   Ramana   Reddy   and   Ors. 46
,   this   Court   acquitted
respondent nos. 2 and 3 therein on the ground that there was a
delay   of   10   days   in   conducting   the   TIP,   and   in   those   10   days,
there  was  a  high  likelihood  of  their   photographs  being   shown   to
the   witnesses.   In   Rajesh   Govind   Jagesha   v.   State   of
Maharashtra 47
,   a delay of about one month was viewed seriously
by   this   Court   since   there   was   a   possibility   of   the   accused   being
shown to the witnesses.  
48. Returning  to  the facts of  the present case, we have  already
noted   that   Accused   Nos.   1­16   were   arrested   on   13.07.2000.
45   (1987) 3 SCC 331
46   (1991) 4 SCC 536
47   Supra No.32
33

Instead   of   filing   an   application   for   conducting   a   TIP   at   the
earliest,   the   IO   (PW­84)   filed   a   remand   application,   pursuant   to
which   the   Accused   were   remanded   to   police   custody.   There   is
strong   evidence   that   the   Accused   were   shown   to   the   witnesses
during   their   police   custody   period.   The   fact   that   an   application
for  conducting  a   TIP   was  filed  on   23.07.2000,   i.e.,  the   very   next
day after the police custody period ended, leads to the inevitable
conclusion   that   the   Accused   were   taken   into   police   custody   to
facilitate   their   easy   identification   during   the   TIP.   Otherwise,   we
see   no   reason   why   an   application   for   conducting   a   TIP   was   not
filed   immediately   after   the   arrest   of   the   Accused.   In   such
circumstances, we firmly believe that the delay in holding the TIP
coupled   with   other   circumstances   has   cast   a   serious   doubt   on
the credibility of the TIP witnesses.
49. Re: Legality of the TIP and the presence of the IO during the
conduct   of   the   TIP :   A   three­judge   bench   of   this   Court   in
Chunthuram   v.   State   of   Chhattisgarh 48
,   by   relying  on   Ramkishan
Mithanlal   Sharma   v.   State   of   Bombay 49
,   has   held   that   any
identification   made   by   witnesses   in   a   TIP   in   the   presence   of   a
48  Supra No.30
49  Supra No. 31
34

police officer tantamount to statements made to the police officer
under Section 162 Cr.P.C. The Court held:  
“The   infirmities   in   the   conduct   of   the   test   identification
parade would next bear scrutiny. The major flaw in the
exercise here was the presence of the police during the
exercise.   When   the   identifications   are   held   in   police
presence,   the   resultant   communications   tantamount   to
statements made by the identifiers to a police officer in
course   of   investigation   and   they   fall   within   the   ban   of
Section 162 of the Code.”  
50. The   evidence   of   IO   (PW­84)   about   the   conduct   of   the   Test
Identification Parade may be noted: ­
“(Q).   Did   you   make   any   arrangement   to   prevent   the
witness and the accused from seeing each other inside
the jail?
(A). I did not think it as something needed.” 
51. Further,   when   a   question   regarding   the   presence   of   the   IO
(PW­84) was put to JMFC (PW­47), he stated that:
“... in   the   parade   conducted   on   31.07.2000,   31   non­
suspects   were   selected.   The   civilian   were   produced   by
the IO.  On that date also Dy. SP and CI were present in
the premises of the jail …… ” 
52. With   respect   to   the   2 nd
  TIP   conducted   on   26.08.2000,   the
JMFC (PW­47) stated that:
  “ On 26.08.2000 Dy. SP S.P. Joshwa was also present
in the central prison ”. 
53. Having   considered   the   statement   of   the   JMFC   (PW­47)   and
the   evidence   of   the   IO   (PW­84)   together,   we   are   of   the   view   that
35

the   presence   of   the   Investigating   Officer   at   the   time   of   the   TIP
cannot be ruled out. The Investigating Officer has stated that he
has   not   taken   any   steps   to   ensure   that   the   accused   and   the
witnesses   do   not   see   each   other.   It   is   rather   surprising   to   note
that   Investigating   Officer   thinks   that   such   a   measure   is   not
necessary. 
54. In   this   very   context,   we   may   also   note   the   first   TIP   report
dated   31.07.2000   made   by   the   JMFC   (PW­47).   The   Magistrate
recorded that the Accused had raised concerns over  the manner
in  which  the  TIP  was conducted.  The relevant  portion  of  the  TIP
report is noted hereunder:
“21. Thereafter when the suspects alone were left in the
hall,   they   were   asked,   whether   they   have   got   any
complaints,   as   to   the   manner   of   the   conduct   of   the
parade.   All   of   them   replied   in   the   negative.   When
questioned, whether they have got anything else to say,
they   unanimously   asked   Mr.   Padma   Kumar   (A2)   to
state   something.   He   then   said   that   when   the   suspects
were in Police custody, they were all, photographed and
videographed and were also shown to all the 6 witness,
who  are  made  to identify them  in the  parade, from  the
cabin of the Dy. SP. Mr. Joshwa.”
55. Even   the   report   of   the   second   TIP   dated   26.08.2000   as
recorded by the JMFC (PW­47) notes as hereunder: 
“22. When the accused persons along were left in the
hall,   they   were   questioned,   my   whether   they   have   got
any   complaint   regarding   the   manner   of   the   conduct   of
36

the   parade.     They   all   replied   in   the   negative.   When
queried further, whether they have got anything else to
say   all   of   them   wanted   the   second   accused   Padma
Kumar to make some comments. Thereupon, the second
accused  stated  that  accused  Nos.  1  to  16  were, before
their   production   in   court,   in   police   custody   for   three
days;   that   accused   nos.   17   to   19   were   similarly   in
police   custody   for   6   days;   that   when   all   the   19   were
taken to the  court on 24 and 25.8.2000 presence of all
the witnesses in the court were arranged by the Police,
so   as   to   enable   them   to   see   all   the   accused   persons;
and   that   while   in   Police   custody   all   of   them   were
photographed   and   videographed   and   were   also   made
to   be   seen   by   all   the   witnesses,   from   the   chamber   of
Deputy   Superintendent   Of   Police,   the   investigating
officer.   All the accused had also stated that they were
wearing the very same dress, straight from their arrest
till date.”
56.  In   view   of   the   evidence   available   on   record,   we   are   of   the
opinion   that   the   conduct   of   the   TIP,   coupled   with   the   hovering
presence  of  the  police  during   the  conduct  of  the  TIP  vitiated  the
entire   process.   The   Trial   Court   as   well   as   the   High   Court   have
committed   a   serious   error   in   relying   on   the   evidence   of   the   TIP
witnesses   for   convicting   and   sentencing   the   Appellants.     We   are
of   the   opinion   that   the   conviction   and   sentencing   are   not
sustainable.     In   view   of   these   lapses   on   the   part   of   the
prosecution,   it   is   not   necessary   for   us   to   consider   various   other
grounds raised by the Appellants.
57. Conclusion :   Having   considered   the   matter   in   detail   and
having   noted   the   various   discrepancies   in   the   manner   in   which
37

both   the   TIPs   were   conducted,   we   believe   that   the   prosecution
has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt. Apart from
the TIPs, we find no other  evidence put forth by the prosecution
to prove the guilt of the Accused for offences under Sections 143,
147, 148 IPC and 3(2)(e) of PDPP Act r/w 149 of the IPC.  
58. For the reasons stated above, and in conclusion, we : ­
i. Allow   Criminal   Appeal   Nos.   1864­1865   of   2010   arising
out   of   the   judgment   of   the   High   Court   of   Kerala   in
Criminal Appeal Nos. 384 and 385 of 2006, and  
ii. Set   aside   the   conviction   and   sentence   of   the   Appellants
under   the   judgment   of   the   High   Court   of   Kerala   in
Criminal   Appeal   Nos.   384   and   385   of   2006   dated
14.01.2010 and the judgment of the Court of Additional
District   and   Sessions   Judge   (Fast­track   Court   –   I),
Thiruvananthapuram   in   Sessions   Case   Nos.   302   of
2001, 1786 of 2001 and 1313 of 2002 dated 15.02.2006
under   Sections   143,   147,   148   IPC   and   3(2)(e)   of
Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984   r/w
Section149 of the IPC.
iii. The Appellants are acquitted of all the charges, and their
bail   bonds,   if   any,   stand   discharged.   Pending
38

interlocutory   applications,   if   any,   stand   disposed   of   in
terms of the above order. 
iv. Parties shall bear their own cost.
……………………………….J.
                                                            [B.R. GAVAI]
……………………………….J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 11, 2022                         
39