AMRIK SINGHversusTHE STATE OF PUNJAB

                        [2022] 7 S.C.R. 451                              451


                          AMRIK SINGH                                    A
                                  v.
                     THE STATE OF PUNJAB
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 993 of 2012)
                           JULY 11, 2022                                 B

         [M. R. SHAH AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
       Criminal Trial: Test Identification Parade-TIP – Non-conduct
of – Effect of, on prosecution case – Appellant and two others
allegedly committed robbery and murdered the victim during the           C
course of the robbery – FIR by complainant-eye-witness – Conviction
u/ss. 302 r/w 34 and 392 and sentenced to life imprisonment by
courts below – On appeal, held: Prosecution failed to prove that
the complainant and the deceased were carrying cash and it was
looted by the accused persons – Conviction solely on the basis of
the identification of the accused by the complainant-eye-witness         D
for the first time in the court room – Prior thereto no TIP was
conducted by the investigating agency – When no TIP was
conducted the first version of the complainant reflected in the FIR
would play an important role – However, there were some
contradictions in the first statement of the complainant recorded in     E
the form of FIR and in the deposition before the court, thus, TIP
was necessary – It would not be safe and/or prudent to convict the
accused solely on the basis of their identification for the first time
in the Court – Conviction of the accused is unsustainable – Judgment
and order of the trial court as well as of the High Court is quashed
and set aside – Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 r/w s. 34, s. 392.            F
      Allowing the appeals, the Court
      HELD: 1.1 It is required to be noted that the appellants-
accused have been convicted mainly on the identification of the
accused by PW1 in the Court Room and on the recovery of Rs.1
                                                                         G
lakh each from the accused persons which were recovered from
the places suggested by the accused. Thus, the conviction of the
accused in the instant case is solely on the identification of the
accused by PW1 in the court room. Prior thereto no TIP has been
conducted by the Investigating Agency. [Para 6][458-G-H]
                                                                         H
                                 451
452            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A            1.2 As regards, the conviction based on the recovery of
      Rs.1 lakhs each from the accused is concerned, it is required to
      be noted that even the trial court specifically gave the finding
      that the prosecution has failed to prove that the original
      complainant and the deceased were carrying Rs.5 lakhs cash in
      the dicky of the scooter as alleged. To connect the accused for
B
      having conducted the evidence of loot of Rs.5 lakhs, primarily
      the prosecution was required to establish and prove that the
      person from whom the amount which was having to have looted.
      Thereafter the prosecution is required to establish and prove
      that the amount which is recovered from the accused is the very
C     amount which the complainant/the person from whom the amount
      is looted. Even the trial court has also not given much stress on
      the recovery of Rs.1 lakh each from the accused. When the
      prosecution failed to prove that the complainant and the deceased
      were carrying Rs.5 lakhs cash in the dicky of the scooter and it
      was the very looted amount which was recovered from the
D
      accused, the accused cannot be convicted on the basis of recovery
      of some cash. [Para 6.1][459-A-D]
            1.3 As regards, the conviction of the accused on the PW1-
      eye-witness identifying the accused in the Court Room and non-
      conducting the TIP is concerned, while appreciating the said
E     aspect the averments in the FIR which was given by PW1-eye-
      witnesses are required to be referred to. It may be true that the
      FIR cannot be encyclopedia. However, at the same time when no
      TIP was conducted the first version of the complainant reflected
      in the FIR would play an important role. It is required to be
F     considered whether in the FIR and/or in the first version the
      eye-witness either disclosed the identity and/or description of
      the accused on the basis of which he can recollect at the time of
      deposition and identify the accused for the first time in the Court
      Room? Nothing has been mentioned in his first statement that
      he had seen the accused earlier and that he will be able to identify
G     the accused. In light of the above, the deposition of PW1 in the
      Court and his identifying the accused for the first time in the
      Court is required to be appreciated. [Paras 6.2, 6.3][459-D-G;
      460-D-E]

H
           AMRIK SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB                          453


       1.4 There are some contradictions in the first statement of     A
the complainant recorded in the form of FIR and in the deposition
before the Court. In the deposition before the Court, he has tried
to improve the case by deposing that he had seen the accused in
the city on one or two occasions. The said was not disclosed in
the FIR. Even in the cross-examination as admitted by PW1 he
                                                                       B
did not disclose any description of the accused. At this stage it is
to be noted that PW1 specifically and categorically admitted in
the cross- examination that it is incorrect that the accused were
known earlier. He disclosed only the age of the accused. In that
view of the matter conducting of TIP was necessitated and,
therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not safe   C
to convict the accused solely on their identification by PW1 for
the first time in the Court. [Para 6.4][461-E-H]
      1.5 Both, the trial court as well as the High Court committed
a grave error in convicting the accused. The judgment and orders
passed by the trial court confirmed by the High Court convicting       D
the accused for the offence under Sections 302 read with Section
34 and Section 392 IPC respectively are unsustainable and are
quashed and set aside and the accused are acquitted from the
charges for which they were tried. [Para 7][463-A-B]
      Malkhansingh and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh                 E
      (2003) 5 SCC 746 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 443; Md.
      Kalam v. State of Rajasthan (2008) 11 SCC 352 : [2008]
      5 SCR 22 – distinguished.
                      Case Law Reference
[2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 443           distinguished         Para 6.5       F
[2008] 5 SCR 22                   distinguished         Para 6.6
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
993 of 2012.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 01.04.2011 of the High Court   G
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 645-DB
of 2004.



                                                                       H
454            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A           With
            Criminal Appeal No. 992 of 2012.
            Ms. Roohina Dua, Ms. Mansi Gupta, Sangram Saron, Shree Pal
      Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.
B           Ms. Richa Kapoor, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Ms. Aishwarya Mishra,
      Kunal Anand, Advs. for the Respondent.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            M. R. SHAH, J.
            1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
C
      and order dated 01.04.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab and
      Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.645 of 2004 and Criminal
      Appeal No.563 of 2004 by which the Division Bench of the High Court
      has dismissed the said appeals preferred by the accused and has
      confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court
D     convicting the accused Amrik Singh and Subhash Chander for the
      offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section
      392 of the IPC, the accused Amrik Singh and Subhash Chander have
      preferred the present appeals.
             2. That the appellant herein was charged along with one Subhash
E     Chander and Pritpal Singh for committing robbery and murdering one
      Gian Chand (deceased) during the course of the robbery. As per the
      prosecution case, the deceased Gian Chand, one Munshi Ram, father of
      the deceased along with the complainant Des Raj (PW1) were proceeding
      from the office of Sub-registrar District Fazilka and after dropping of
      the father of the deceased at the local bus stand, they proceeded towards
F
      their village. It was further alleged that on route to their village, three
      persons came on a scooter and tried stopping them. When the
      complainant who was driving the scooter did not stop, co-accused
      Subhash Chander thrown red chilli powder into the eyes of the
      complainant after which the scooter stopped and the complainant was
G     temporarily blinded. That all the three tried to snatch the scooter of the
      complainant and in the said scuffle, present appellant – accused – Amrik
      Singh shot the deceased Gian Chand in the chest. The complainant arrived
      into the fields and upon his return he saw that the assailants have taken
      away the scooter and Gian Chand was lying unconscious with blood
      oozing out of his chest. As per the case of the prosecution the motive
H
           AMRIK SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB                               455
                     [M. R. SHAH, J.]

was that the father of the deceased had executed a sale deed in favour      A
of sons of the complainant (PW1) for the purpose of which they had
gone to the office of the Sub-registrar. The consideration for the sale
had not been paid and an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was in the dicky of the
scooter, which the assailants had stolen. That thereafter PW1 proceeded
to the police station. His statement was recorded by PW11 Inspector
                                                                            B
Karamjit Singh who proceeded to the scene of occurrence and found
the dead body of Gian Chand lying over there. He prepared inquest
report. He collected the necessary evidence. PW6 Dr. M.M. Singh
conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Gian Chand.
Post mortem was conducted on 08.05.2001 at about 6.30 p.m. As per
the medical evidence death could have occurred about 6 hours prior to       C
the examination. In course of the investigation Subhash Chander and
Amrik Singh – accused were arrested on the basis of the disclosure
statement of the appellant accused – Amrik Singh. ASI - PW7 recovered
a sum of Rs.1 lakh alleged to have been looted out of Rs.5 lakhs which
according to the complainant PW1 was kept in the dicky of the scooter.
                                                                            D
On the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused Subhash
Chander a further sum of Rs.1 lakh was recovered. After completion of
the investigation, the IO filed the charge-sheet. As the case was
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to
the Sessions Court. The accused pleaded not guilty and therefore they
came to be tried by the Sessions Court for the offence punishable under     E
Sections 302/34 and 392 read with Section 397 IPC.
       2.1 To bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution examined as
many as 11 witnesses which included PW1 the original complainant -
the eye witness Karamjit Singh, Inspector - PW11, Dr. M.M. Singh –
PW6 and other police officials. After the cross-examination of the          F
prosecution witnesses the accused were examined and their further
statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. All the incriminating
circumstances appeared against them in the prosecution evidence were
put to them in order to enable them to explain the same. They denied all
such circumstances and pleaded their innocence. That thereafter on
appreciation of evidence and mainly relying upon the deposition of PW1      G
– original complainant who was cited as eye-witness and on the recovery
of Rs.1 lakh from the place suggested by the accused, the learned Trial
Court held the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections
302/34 and 392 IPC and sentenced the accused to undergo life
imprisonment for having committed the murder of deceased Gian Chand.        H
456            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A            2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
      of conviction and sentence by the learned Trial Court convicting the
      accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 and 392 IPC,
      the accused Amrik Singh and Subhash Chander preferred the Criminal
      Appeal No.645-DB of 2004 and Criminal Appeal No.563 of 2004 before
      the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court
B
      has dismissed the said appeals and has confirmed the order of conviction
      and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court. The judgment and order
      passed by the High Court is the subject matter of present appeals.
             3. Ms. Roohina Dua, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
      accused has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances
C     of the case and on the evidence on record both, the learned Trial Court
      as well as the High Court have committed serious error in convicting the
      accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section
      34 and Section 392 IPC respectively.
             3.1 It is submitted that as such the appellants have been convicted
D     on the deposition of PW1 – original complainant – informant and the
      identification of the accused in the Court by PW1.
             3.2 It is submitted that in the present case admittedly no Test
      Identification Parade (hereinafter referred to as ‘TIP’) has been
      conducted to identify the accused. It is submitted that in the present
E     case as such non-conducting the TIP is fatal to the case of the prosecution
      more particularly when PW1 is the original complainant who did not
      disclose any description of the accused before the I.O. and even in the
      FIR.
             3.3 It is submitted that even the conviction of the accused on the
F     alleged recovery of Rs.1 lakh each is also not sustainable. It is submitted
      that even the learned Trial Court has also disbelieved the case on behalf
      of the prosecution that the complainant and the deceased were carrying
      Rs.5 lakhs in the dicky of the scooter. It is submitted therefore that the
      factum of Rs.5 lakhs being carried in the scooter by the complainant and
G     the deceased has not been established and proved, the recovery of Rs.1
      lakh each from the accused becomes insignificant. It is submitted that
      the prosecution has to prove by leading cogent evidence that the
      complainant and the deceased were carrying Rs.5 lakhs in the dicky of
      the scooter as alleged and the amount which is recovered from the
      accused is the very amount which the complainant and the deceased
H     were carrying in the scooter.
            AMRIK SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB                                  457
                      [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      3.4 It is submitted that therefore the accused cannot be convicted        A
on the basis of the identification of the accused by PW1 in the Court
which is for the first time and on the basis of the recovery of Rs.1 lakh
each from the accused.
       3.5 It is submitted that therefore in absence of any cogent evidence
on the identification of the accused and it can be seen that the prosecution    B
has failed to prove the identification of the accused beyond doubt, to
convict the accused solely on the basis of the identification of the accused
by PW1 for the first time in the Court is not warranted. It is submitted
that in the facts and circumstances of the case it is not safe to rely upon
the identification of the accused for the first time in the Court.
                                                                                C
      Making above submissions, it is prayed to acquit the accused.
      4. Present appeals are vehemently opposed by Ms. Richa Kapoor,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent – State.
       4.1 It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel for the State
that in the present case when PW1 – eye-witness has identified the              D
accused in the Court Room, non-conducting the TIP would not vitiate
the trial and the case of the prosecution.
       4.2 It is submitted that PW1 – complainant is an eye-witness. It is
submitted that he has deposed in the Court that “One of those boys fired
a gun shot at Gian Chand which hit him at his chest on the seat of heart.       E
All the three said young persons are the accused who are present in
Court today. (Witness has pointed out towards one of the accused as a
person who had fired at Gian Chand and that accused has disclosed his
name as Amrik Singh). The accused who is standing on one side had put
the chili powder in my eyes (the name of accused pointed out by the             F
witness has been disclosed as Subhash Chander)”.
        4.3 It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel on behalf of the
State that in every case non-conducting the TIP would not vitiate the
trial and/or case of the prosecution. It is submitted that the TIP is
conducted only to make sure by the Investigating Officer that the
                                                                                G
investigation is going on in the right direction as against the real culprit.
It is submitted that it is also conducted to refresh the memory of the
witnesses who saw the accused. It is submitted that as held by this
Court in a catena of decisions, TIP is not substantive evidence and in
fact the substantive evidence is that of identification in Court. It is
submitted that holding of TIP, if the accused is not known to the               H
458             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A     complainant earlier is to ascertain whether the investigation is being
      conducted in a proper manner and with proper direction and is admissible
      in evidence as corroborative evidence under Section 9 of the Indian
      Evidence Act. It is submitted that however, the absence of test
      identification parade may not ipso-facto sufficient to discard the testimony
      of witness who has identified the accused in the Court. It is submitted
B
      that even in a given case, the Court if comes to the conclusion that the
      testimony of the prosecution witness specially of an eye-witness is of a
      sterling quality, and trustworthy, the testimony of such a witness can be
      accepted with regard to identification of the accused in court and
      conviction can be sustained without any doubt upon the said testimony.
C     In support of the above learned counsel appearing for the State has
      heavily relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of
      Malkhansingh and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; (2003) 5
      SCC 746 (paras 16 and 17) and Md. Kalam Vs. State of Rajasthan,
      (2008) 11 SCC 352 (para 7).
D           4.4 It is submitted that even in the present case there is a recovery
      of Rs.1 lakh from the accused and from the place disclosed by the
      accused. It is submitted that as such the accused have failed to explain
      and/or failed to account the recovery of Rs.1 lakh each.
             4.5 It is submitted that therefore the High Court as well as the
E     learned Trial Court have not committed any error in convicting the accused
      for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 392 read with Section
      34 IPC (so far as the accused Subhash Chander is concerned).
            Making above submissions it is prayed to dismiss the present
      appeals.
F           5. Heard. We have gone through the impugned judgment and order
      passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the High Court convicting
      the accused and the findings recorded. We have minutely gone through
      the entire evidence on record more particularly the FIR as well as the
      deposition of PW1.

G            6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the appellants –
      accused have been convicted mainly on the identification of the accused
      by PW1 in the Court Room and on the recovery of Rs.1 lakh each from
      the accused persons which were recovered from the places suggested
      by the accused. Thus, the conviction of the accused in the present case
      is solely on the identification of the accused by PW1 in the court room.
H     Prior thereto no TIP has been conducted by the Investigating Agency.
            AMRIK SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB                                459
                      [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       6.1 Now so far as the conviction based on the recovery of Rs.1         A
lakhs each from the accused is concerned, at the outset it is required to
be noted that even the learned Trial Court has also specifically given the
finding that the prosecution has failed to prove that the original
complainant and the deceased were carrying Rs.5 lakhs cash in the
dicky of the scooter as alleged. To connect the accused for having
                                                                              B
conducted the evidence of loot of Rs.5 lakhs, primarily the prosecution
was required to establish and prove that the person from whom the
amount which was having to have looted. Thereafter the prosecution is
required to establish and prove that the amount which is recovered from
the accused is the very amount which the complainant/the person from
whom the amount is looted. Even the learned Trial Court has also not          C
given much stress on the recovery of Rs.1 lakh each from the accused.
Be that it may we are of the opinion that when the prosecution has failed
to prove that the complainant and the deceased were carrying Rs.5
lakhs cash in the dicky of the scooter and it was the very looted amount
which was recovered from the accused, the accused cannot be convicted
                                                                              D
on the basis of recovery of some cash.
       6.2 Now so far as the conviction of the accused on the PW1 –
eye-witness identifying the accused in the Court Room and non-
conducting the TIP is concerned, while appreciating the said aspect the
averments in the FIR which was given by PW1- eye-witnesses are
required to be referred to. It may be true that as per the settled position   E
of law the FIR cannot be encyclopedia. However, at the same time
when no TIP was conducted the first version of the complainant reflected
in the FIR would play an important role. It is required to be considered
whether in the FIR and/or in the first version the eye-witness either
disclosed the identity and/or description of the accused on the basis of      F
which he can recollect at the time of deposition and identify the accused
for the first time in the Court Room? Having gone through the FIR on
the identity of the accused it is stated as under:
            “I was driving the scooter and Gian Chand was sitting behind
      me. When we were at link road shaterwala from Fazilka A bohar           G
      G.T. road about 1-11/2 kilometer ahead, three young persons
      reached with us on a scooter from the backside, out of them, two
      clean shaven young persons having ages of 30-35 year and one
      Sikh (sardar) who had tied a (Thathi) a piece of cloth having the
      age of about 30- 32 years, who was sitting in the middle was
                                                                              H
460             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A           having a 12 bore gun of small barrel all these three young persons
            while reaching with us tried us to stop. When we did not stop then
            a clean-shaven young person who was sitting on the rear seat of
            the scooter thrown chilly powder on our faces and eyed with his
            hand as a result of which we could not see and we stopped our
            scooter being helpless a and opened our eyes after placing hand
B
            on the eyes. In the meantime these young persons stopped their
            scooters ahead of our scooter and came forward to snatch our
            scooter. We tried to prevent them, in the meantime, a Sikh
            Youngman fired a shot at Gian Chand in a strength way with his
            12 bore gun hitting him on the chest as a result of which he fell
C           down on the ground.”
             6.3 Thus, from the aforesaid it is seen that except stating that the
      accused were three young persons out of which two were clean shaven
      and the one Sikh (sardar) who had tied a (Thathi) having the age of 30-
      32 years no further description had been given by the complainant –
D     PW1. Nothing has been mentioned in his first statement that he had
      seen the accused earlier and that he will be able to identify the accused.
      In light of the above, the deposition of PW1 in the Court and his identifying
      the accused for the first time in the Court is required to be appreciated.
      In the examination-in-chief, PW1 has stated as under:
E                  “When at about 1-30 p.m. when we had covered a distance
            of about eight k.m.s from G.T. road and were going on the link
            road of Shaterwala, three young persons came from our back
            side on a scooter. They tried to stop us but we did not stop. They
            over took our scooter and put chillies powder in my eyes. That
            chilly powder entered in my right eye and I had to stop my scooter.
F           After rubbing the eye I opened the same. Gain Chand alighted
            from my scooter.”
                                   xxx     xxx xxx
                   “Out of three young persons, two young boys tried to snatch
G           my scooter. Gian Chand came parallel to me and tried to prevent
            those boys from snatching the scooter. One of those boys fired a
            shot at Gian Chand which hit him at his chest on the seat of heart.
            All the three said young persons are the accused who are present
            in the court today (witness has pointed towards one of the accused
            as the person who had fired at Gian Chand and that accused has
H
            AMRIK SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB                                 461
                      [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      disclosed his name as Amrik Singh). The accused who is standing          A
      on one side had put the chili powder in my eyes (the name of the
      accused pointed out by the witness has been disclosed as Subhash
      Chand).”
      In the cross-examination he had deposed as under:
              “I had not stated before the police that the chilli powder       B
      had effected only my right eye and I opened the same after rubbing
      it. I had stated before the police that chilli powder was put in our
      eyes as a result of which were not in position to see.”
                            xxx     xxx xxx
                                                                               C
              “In connection with the investigation of this case I had been
      going to the police station quite often. The accused were never
      shown to me during investigation.) Before the occurrence, I had
      seen them in the City on one or two occasions. I After the
      occurrence I have seen, them in the court today for the first time.
      At the time of occurrence their names were not known to me. I            D
      do not know where they had been residing before the occurrence.
      When I made my statement before police I had only disclosed the
      age of accused and not their description. It is incorrect that I have
      deposed falsely, lit is incorrect that accused were known the earlier.
      It is further incorrect that accused have been falsely implicated in     E
      this case as Pritpal Singh had filed writ petition against the police
      in the month of August/September 2001.”
         6.4 From the aforesaid it can be seen that as such there are some
contradictions in the first statement of the complainant recorded in the
form of FIR and in the deposition before the Court. In the deposition          F
before the Court, he has tried to improve the case by deposing that he
had seen the accused in the city on one or two occasions. The aforesaid
was not disclosed in the FIR. Even in the cross-examination as admitted
by PW1 he did not disclose any description of the accused. At this stage
it is to be noted that PW1 has specifically and categorically admitted in
the cross-examination that it is incorrect that the accused were known         G
earlier. He disclosed only the age of the accused. In that view of the
matter conducting of TIP was necessitated and, therefore in the facts
and circumstances of the case, it is not safe to convict the accused
solely on their identification by PW1 for the first time in the Court.
                                                                               H
462             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 7 S.C.R.


A            6.5 Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this
      Court in the case of Malkhansingh (supra) relied upon by learned
      counsel appearing on behalf of the State in support of her submissions
      that the TIP is not substantive evidence and in fact the substantive
      evidence is that of identification in Court is concerned, on facts the said
      decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Even in
B
      the said decision it is observed what weight must be attached to the
      evidence of identification in court, which is not preceded by a test
      identification parade, is a matter for the courts of fact to examine. In the
      case before this Court, it was found that the crime was perpetrated in
      broad daylight; the prosecutrix had sufficient opportunity to observe the
C     features of the appellants who raped her one after the other; before the
      rape was committed, she was threatened and intimated by the accused;
      after the rape was committed, she was again threatened and intimidated
      by them. On such facts it was found that it was not a case where the
      identifying witness had only a fleeting glimpse of the accused on a dark
      night.
D
              6.6 Similarly, another decision of this Court in the case of
      Md. Kalam (supra) relied upon by learned counsel appearing on behalf
      of the State also shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
      It is observed in the said decision that the evidence of mere identification
      of the accused person at the trial for the first time is from its very nature
E     inherently of a weak character. It is observed that the purpose of TIP
      therefore is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence.
      It is observed that it is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to
      generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in
      Court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to them, in the
F     form of earlier identification proceedings. It is further observed that the
      said rule of prudence, however, is subject to exceptions, when, for
      example, the Court is impressed by a particular witness on whose
      testimony it can safely rely without such or other corroboration.
      Therefore, on facts it was observed that failure to hold a TIP would not
      make inadmissible the evidence of identification in Court. It is further
G     observed that the weight to be attached to such identification should be
      a matter for the courts of fact.
             6.7 Even applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
      decisions and looking to the facts narrated hereinabove, we are of the
      opinion that it would not be safe and/or prudent to convict the accused
H     solely on the basis of their identification for the first time in the Court.
              AMRIK SINGH v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB                              463
                        [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we are       A
of the firm opinion that both, the learned Trial Court as well as the High
Court have committed a grave error in convicting the accused. The
judgment and orders passed by the learned Trial Court confirmed by the
High Court convicting the accused for the offence under Sections 302
read with Section 34 and Section 392 IPC respectively are unsustainable
                                                                              B
and they deserve to be quashed and set aside and the accused are to be
acquitted for the purpose for which they were tried.
      8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above the
appeals succeed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned
Trial Court as well as the High Court convicting the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and Section       C
392 IPC are hereby quashed and set aside.
       The accused are acquitted from the charges for which they were
tried. The appellants – accused be released forthwith, if they are not
required in any other case.
                                                                              D
       The Appeals are allowed accordingly.

Nidhi Jain                                                 Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Shashwat Jain, LCRA)

                                                                              E




                                                                              F




                                                                              G




                                                                              H