Summary of the Judgment:
Case Name: P. Sasikumar vs The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police
Date: 8th July 2024
Judges: Honorable Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Honorable Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Acts and Sections: Section 302 read with Section 34, Sections 449, 404, and 201 read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Cited Judgements: Kunjumon v. State of Kerala (2012) 13 SCC 750, Rajesh v. State of Haryana (2021) 1 SCC 118, Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 9 SCC 284, Malkhansingh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2003) 5 SCC 746, Jayan v. State of Kerala (2021) 20 SCC 38, Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab (2022) 9 SCC 402
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgement on 8th July 2024, in the case of P. Sasikumar vs The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, dealing with the conviction of the appellant under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The judgement, delivered by Honorable Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Honorable Justice Prasanna B. Varale, critically examined the identification of the accused and the procedural lapses in the investigation, ultimately leading to the appellant's acquittal.
Background of the Case
The case revolves around the brutal murder of a 14-year-old girl in her home on the night of 13th November 2014. The appellant, P. Sasikumar, along with another accused, was convicted by the Trial Court and the High Court of Madras for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34, Sections 449, 404, and 201 read with Section 302 of the IPC. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC.
Prosecution's Case
The prosecution's case was primarily based on circumstantial evidence. The First Information Report (FIR) No.408/2014 was lodged by the deceased's father, Durairaj (PW-1), who discovered his daughter's body with severe neck injuries upon returning home. The prosecution presented both ocular and forensic evidence to link the appellant and the co-accused to the crime. Key witnesses, including Durairaj and another witness (PW-5), identified the appellant as one of the two men seen near the crime scene.
Identification and Testimony Issues
One of the pivotal issues in this case was the identification of the appellant. The witnesses identified the appellant based on his distinctive green monkey cap, which he wore during the incident. However, the Supreme Court found significant flaws in this identification process.
Honorable Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia highlighted:
"...both of them had seen the appellant for the first time on 13.11.2014 while he was wearing a green coloured monkey cap. None of them had seen him earlier."
The absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) was a crucial oversight in the investigation. The witnesses identified the appellant only during the trial, which was deemed unreliable given the circumstances.
Critical Observations by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court underscored the importance of TIP in cases where the accused is a stranger to the witnesses. The Court cited several precedents, including Kunjumon v. State of Kerala (2012) 13 SCC 750, emphasizing that TIP is not substantive evidence but plays a crucial role in corroborating dock identification during the trial.
Honorable Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed:
"In cases where accused is a stranger to a witness and there has been no TIP, the trial court should be very cautious while accepting the dock identification by such a witness."
The Court noted that the prosecution failed to conduct a TIP and relied heavily on the in-court identification by witnesses who had not seen the appellant prior to the incident. This lapse was deemed a fatal flaw in the investigation.
Cited Judgements and Their Relevance
The judgement referenced several key rulings to bolster its findings. In Rajesh v. State of Haryana (2021) 1 SCC 118, the Court held that TIP might not be necessary if the witness's court identification is of sterling quality. However, in this case, the identification was not deemed robust enough without prior TIP.
The Court also cited Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 9 SCC 284 and Malkhansingh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2003) 5 SCC 746 to elucidate the significance of TIP in ensuring fair identification of the accused.
Implications of the Judgement
The judgement in P. Sasikumar vs The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police has far-reaching implications for the criminal justice system in India. It underscores the judiciary's unwavering commitment to the principles of fair trial and due process, ensuring that procedural lapses do not lead to wrongful convictions. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on the necessity of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) in cases involving stranger identification serves as a crucial guideline for law enforcement agencies.
This decision is a stark reminder that circumstantial evidence must be handled with utmost care and corroborated adequately to meet the standards of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The ruling also highlights the judiciary's role in scrutinizing the quality of evidence and the methodologies employed during investigations, thereby reinforcing the importance of adhering to established legal procedures.
For legal professionals, this case underscores the need to diligently question and verify the processes followed during the investigation phase. It serves as a precedent that will likely influence future cases involving similar identification issues, prompting a reevaluation of current practices within the criminal justice system.
The acquittal of P. Sasikumar, after nearly eight years of incarceration, also raises awareness about the human cost of procedural failures. It stresses the need for continual training and education for law enforcement personnel to prevent such oversights, ensuring that justice is not only done but seen to be done.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court, after a meticulous review of the evidence and procedural lapses, concluded that the identification of the appellant was dubious. The lack of TIP, combined with the circumstances under which the witnesses identified the appellant, led to a reasonable doubt about his involvement in the crime. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellant, setting aside the High Court's judgement.
The ruling reinforces the importance of proper identification procedures and the need for rigorous adherence to investigative protocols to ensure justice. The judgement serves as a critical reminder for legal professionals and law enforcement agencies about the pivotal role of procedural fairness in criminal trials.
Comments