Author- Manshi Raj, Usha Martin University, Ranchi Jharkhand

CASE DETAILS

i)          Judgement Cause Title / Case Name	State (NCT of Delhi) V. Munna and Ors.
ii)          Case Number	CRL.A.845/2013
iii)          Judgement Date	April 15, 2014
iv)          Court	Delhi High Court
v)          Quorum / Constitution of Bench	A single bench of Delhi High Court
vi)          Author / Name of Judges	Justice Vipin Sanghi
vii)          Citation	2014 SCC OnLine Del 1738; (2014) Delhi High Court.
viii)          Legal Provisions Involved	Regarding identification under section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and articles 20 and 21 of the Indian constitution

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This case revolves around attempted robbery where an accused wore something (disguises) on his face so that nobody could recognize his face and basically tried to hide his face which made it difficult for witnesses to identify them. The major question that arose was whether identifying the accused for the first time during the trial without earlier identification through a test identification parade (TIP) could be enough to convict them.[1] So here the Delhi High Court reviewed the mistake in the process that conducting TIP and failing to provide additional evidence to support the witness identification which raised doubt about the fairness of the trial.[2]

FACTS OF THE CASE

Procedural Background of the Case

• This case has been brought from the trial Court to the High Court due to questions about the sufficiency of evidence and procedural lapses.

Factual Background of the Case

• The factual ground for this case was accused was alleged to have attempted a robbery while wearing something on his face which made his face unrecognizable and it difficult to identification of his face. The witness identified some accused during that trial without prior corroboration through a TIP. [3]

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

• Weather identification of the accused for the first time in the court is sufficient for conviction.
• Weather procedural lapses, such as the absence of a TIP, affect the reliability of evidence.[4]

PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

• The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the witness identified the accused during the trial which was sufficient to establish their involvement they contended that the absence of a TIP does not invalidate identification in the court.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

• The counsels for Respondent submitted that first-time identification in the court is inherently weak and unreliable they emphasized the lack of TIP and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence asserting that these lapses Roy related to the accused right to a fair trial.[5][6]

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

• Pertains to the relevancy of facts for identification under section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872
• Ensures the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Indian constitution

JUDGEMENT

RATIO DECIDENDI

• The court held that first-time identification in court without corroboration is insufficient for conviction it emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards like TIP to ensure the reliability of evidence.

GUIDELINES

• The judgment outlines the need for tips in cases where the accused identity is in question.

• •  

OBITER DICTA 

• The Court noted that procedural lapses and weak evidence undermine the fairness of the trial. [7]

CONCLUSION& COMMENTS

So basically this case talks about the importance of procedural fairness and corroborative evidence in criminal trials it serves as a reminder that the prosecution must have legal standards to ensure the reliability of evidence and hold the accused right.

REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

• Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014)[8]
• Dana Yadav v. State of Bihar (2002)[9]

Important Statutes Referred

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 9)[10]
• Indian Constitution (Articles 20 and 21)[11]

1.  

[1] Verma A, “Test Identification Parade’s Purpose And Evidentiary Value Under Indian Law” 7 Research Ambition: An International Multidisciplinary e-Journal 1

[2] Desk C, “Test Identification Parade in Evidence Act” De Facto Judiciary (April 29, 2024) <https://www.defactojudiciary.in/notes/test-identification-parade-in-evidence-act> accessed January 16, 2025

[3] “Mahender Singh Alias Munna v. State Govt. Nct Of Delhi ., Delhi High Court, Judgment, Law, Casemine.Com” (https://www.casemine.com) <https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56ea819c607dba371ebc9e11> accessed January 16, 2025

[4] (Indian kanoon, August 27, 2003) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1484068/> accessed January 16, 2025

[5] (Indian kanoon, August 27, 2003) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1484068/> accessed January 16, 2025

[6] “Mahender Singh Alias Munna v. State Govt. Nct Of Delhi ., Delhi High Court, Judgment, Law, Casemine.Com” (https://www.casemine.com) <https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56ea819c607dba371ebc9e11> accessed January 16, 2025

[7] (Indian kanoon, August 27, 2003) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1484068/> accessed January 16, 2025

[8] (Indian kanoon, August 27, 2003) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1484068/> accessed January 16, 2025

[9] (September 13, 2002) <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1222853/#:~:text=JUDGMENT%202002%20Supp(2)%20SCR,to%20undergo%20imprisonment%20for%20life.> accessed January 17, 2025

[10] advocatekhoj.com, “Section 9” (AdvocateKhoj) <https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/lawreports/evidenceact1872/9.php?Title=Review%20of%20the%20Indian%20Evidence%20Act,%201872&STitle=Section%209> accessed January 16, 2025

[11] Admin, “What Is Article 20 and Article 21? Answer at BYJU’S IAS” BYJU’S (November 30, 2021) <https://byjus.com/ias-questions/what-is-article-20-and-article-21/> accessed January 16, 2025