Rajesh @ Sarkari and Anr. v. State Of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 1648 of 2019
Bench – D. Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, JJ.
Delivered on November 3, 2020
Facts:
The case arose from the shooting of Sandeep Hooda on December 26, 2006, near the Law Department of Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak. The deceased was allegedly shot by three accused persons, including Rajesh alias Sarkari and Ajay Hooda, who escaped on a motorcycle.
The prosecution relied upon eyewitness testimony, ballistic evidence, and recovery of firearms. The Sessions Court convicted the accused and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the conviction.
The accused refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade on the ground that their photographs had already been published in newspapers.
The principal legal issues before the Court were:
i. Whether refusal to participate in a Test Identification Parade could be used adversely against the accused.
ii. Whether in-court identification without TIP was reliable.
Reasoning by Court:
Effect of Refusal to Participate in TIP: The Supreme Court held that refusal to participate in a TIP cannot automatically be used against the accused where their photographs had already been widely published. In such circumstances, the purpose of the TIP stands substantially defeated.
Reliability of In-Court Identification: The Court observed that the eyewitnesses claimed to have seen the assailants from a considerable distance. In absence of a reliable TIP, the Court found the in-court identification insufficiently trustworthy.
The Supreme Court set aside the convictions of Rajesh alias Sarkari and Ajay Hooda. The Court held that: Refusal to participate in a TIP cannot be used adversely where the accused’s identity was already known or publicized. In-court identification without reliable corroboration may be insufficient.