Pammi v. Government of M.P., AIR 1998 SC 1185
Bench – M. M. Punchhi, C.J. and K.T. Thomas and M. Srinivasan, JJ., JJ.
Delivered on February 12, 1998
Facts:
The case arose from the fatal shooting of three individuals—Suresh Palia, Suresh Sharma, and Bajrang Rajput—on June 24, 1983, near Apsara Punjab Hotel in Itwara Bazar, Piparia, Madhya Pradesh.
The prosecution alleged that Pammi @ Brijendra Singh, his father Thakkar Singh, and accomplice Santhosh Singh were involved in a dispute over liquor business accounts with Kamal Kumar Jaiswal (PW-5).
On the night of the incident, the accused allegedly threatened PW-5 at gunpoint. When the three deceased intervened, the accused opened fire, killing them instantly. While attempting to escape, the accused were intercepted by the Tamiya Police.
Santhosh Singh was killed in a police encounter, while Pammi was arrested. The Sessions Court acquitted the accused on the ground of lapses in investigation. The Madhya Pradesh High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted Pammi.
The Court identified four primary legal issues:
i. Whether the absence of a Test Identification Parade rendered the eyewitness testimony unreliable.
ii. Whether identification evidence was admissible where the accused were already known to the witnesses.
Reasoning by Court:
Identification of Known Persons: The Supreme Court rejected the Sessions Court’s reasoning that eyewitness testimony became unreliable due to the absence of a Test Identification Parade. The Court observed that this was not a case where the witnesses were seeing the accused for the first time. PW-1 had specifically named the accused persons in the First Information Report itself.
Object of Test Identification Parade: The Court reiterated that a Test Identification Parade is primarily intended to test the memory and veracity of witnesses where the accused are previously unknown to them. Where the accused are already known and named by witnesses, absence of a TIP does not materially affect the prosecution case.
The Court held that: A Test Identification Parade is not necessary where the accused are already known to the witnesses. Identification evidence remains reliable when the accused are specifically named in the FIR.