Malkhan Singh and Ors. v. State of M.P., (2003) 5 SCC 746
Bench – N. Santosh Hegde, Ashok Bhan and B.P. Singh, JJ.
Delivered on July 8, 2003
Facts:
The case related to the gang rape of Kumari Lusiya, a tribal Assistant Teacher in Madhya Pradesh, on March 4, 1992.
The accused—Malkhansingh, Maharajsingh, and Musab Khan—intercepted the victim while she was proceeding to her school. The accused threatened her with knives, dragged her near a canal, and committed gang rape.
The victim, traumatized and frightened, did not immediately lodge a complaint. She first narrated the incident to Deputy Director of Education Mr. Dutta and later to colleague Mangal Singh.
A formal complaint was lodged on March 14, 1992, after intervention by the District Teachers Association. The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 376(2)(G) IPC and 506 IPC. The Madhya Pradesh High Court affirmed the conviction.
The principal legal issues before the Court were:
i. Whether absence of a Test Identification Parade rendered the in-court identification unreliable.
ii. Whether in-court identification constitutes substantive evidence.
Reasoning by Court:
Nature of TIP Evidence: The Supreme Court held that Test Identification Parades are only corroborative in nature. Substantive evidence is the identification of the accused by witnesses during trial before the Court.
Reliability of In-Court Identification: The Court observed that the offence occurred in broad daylight, enabling the victim to clearly observe the accused. The trauma of the incident had firmly imprinted the faces of the accused in her memory. The Court further noted that the victim had no motive to falsely implicate the accused.
Absence of TIP Not Fatal: The Court distinguished the case from situations involving fleeting glimpses of unknown assailants. Since the victim had ample opportunity to observe the accused, absence of a Test Identification Parade did not weaken the prosecution case.
The Court held that: Test Identification Parades are only corroborative evidence. Substantive evidence is the identification made before the Court. Absence of a TIP does not render in-court identification inadmissible. The victim’s in-court identification was reliable and sufficient to sustain conviction.