Pranav B Prem

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court recently acquitted individuals accused of kidnapping, citing the prosecution's failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP) as a key factor undermining the case. The bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih emphasized that while identifying an accused for the first time during trial is legally permissible, a substantial delay in such identification raises serious doubts about the reliability of the prosecution’s case.

Case Background

The appeal was filed by Venkatesha and others, who were accused of kidnapping a 19-year-old girl in February 1997. The victim, PW-2, alleged that she was forcibly taken by the accused, including the main accused, Reddappa, to a house in Tamil Nadu. The trial court initially convicted the appellants under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced them to five years of rigorous imprisonment. The Karnataka High Court subsequently modified the conviction to Section 363 IPC, reducing the sentence to one year. Despite this, the Supreme Court found compelling reasons to overturn the convictions altogether.

Supreme Court Observations

The apex court noted that the victim was 19 years old at the time of the incident. Highlighting this fact, the court held that Sections 361 and 363 IPC—which deal with the kidnapping of minors from lawful guardianship—were inapplicable in this case. Justice Gavai observed: “The evidence of the prosecution itself would reveal that she was aged 19 years at the time of her alleged abduction. If the victim was above 18 years at the time of the alleged offence, the provisions of Sections 361 and 363 IPC could not have been invoked.”

Delay in Identification Raises Serious Doubts

A critical aspect of the judgment was the court’s assessment of the delay in identifying the accused. The trial occurred approximately eight years after the alleged incident. The victim admitted to knowing only the main accused, Reddappa, from her village but had no prior acquaintance with the other accused. The court emphasized the prosecution’s failure to conduct a TIP, stating: “No identification parade has been conducted in the present matter. While identification by a witness in a given case for the first time in the witness box would be permissible, the substantial gap of approximately eight years raises serious concern regarding identification. If no identification parade of the unknown accused persons took place, their identification in the Trial Court, for the first time, would cast a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution’s case.” The court further noted that such long delays could significantly affect the memory of witnesses, thus impacting the fairness of the trial process.

Reference to Precedents

The judgment also referenced the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Sannaia Subba Rao & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2018), which elaborated on the ingredients of Section 363 IPC. The court reiterated that kidnapping under this section involves taking or enticing a minor from lawful guardianship without the guardian’s consent.

Acquittal of the Accused

The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. It quashed the judgment and order of the High Court and acquitted the appellants, stating: “In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 14th December, 2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore is quashed and set aside.” The court also discharged the bail bonds of the appellants, noting that they were no longer required in connection with the case.

Cause Title: VENKATESHA & ORS. VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 176 OF 2014

Date: January-09-2025%

Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih

[Read/Download order]