Pranav B Prem

The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment delivered on January 22, 2025, acquitted two individuals accused of murder, emphasizing that failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP) of recovered articles amounts to "sheer negligence and dereliction of duty." The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta held that in cases where conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, every relevant fact must be linked with duly proved circumstances.

Case Background

The appellants, Thammaraya and Basappa @ Basavaraj, were convicted by the Fast Track Court-I, Bijapur, for the murder of one Shrishail under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The trial court sentenced them to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹1000 each. Their appeals were dismissed by the Karnataka High Court on August 3, 2010. However, upon review, the Supreme Court found the prosecution's case severely lacking in evidentiary rigor, leading to their acquittal.

Failure to Conduct TIP Undermines Prosecution's Case

One of the primary grounds for acquittal was the prosecution's sole reliance on the recovery of articles allegedly belonging to the deceased, without ensuring proper identification through a Test Identification Parade (TIP). The Court observed: “Therefore, this material omission on part of the Investigating Officer (PW-27) in not conducting a Test Identification Parade (TIP) of the recovered articles, more particularly when the case of prosecution is based solely upon recoveries of these articles, has created holes in the fabric of the prosecution story, which are impossible to mend.” The Court emphasized that a proper TIP is necessary to link the accused to the crime and validate the prosecution's claims.

Convictions Based on Circumstantial Evidence Require Conclusive Proof

The Supreme Court reiterated the well-settled legal principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of events must be conclusive and leave no reasonable doubt. Referring to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Court highlighted the "five golden principles" for cases relying on circumstantial evidence: “Every piece of relevant fact needs to be sewn via the golden thread of duly proved circumstances, in order to ultimately formulate the fabric of guilt.” The Court also cited Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793, emphasizing  that the prosecution must elevate its case from "may be true" to "must be true." The burden lies on the prosecution to establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Deficiencies in the Investigation Process

Analyzing the role of the Investigating Officer (PW-27), the Court found multiple lapses in proving the accused’s disclosure statements and recoveries. It noted that: “In fact, he even did not care to exhibit the disclosure statements of which he was the scribe in his deposition. He also did not depose in clear words that the accused persons had led him to the place mentioned in the disclosure statements and got the articles recovered. No connection between the accused and the particular articles recovered is visible from the testimony of the Investigating Officer (PW-27).” The Court further observed that the prosecution failed to present any independent witnesses for the recovery process, which raised doubts about the reliability of the evidence.

Significance of Test Identification Parade in Criminal Trials

The judgment placed heavy reliance on Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay (1954) 2 SCC 516, wherein the Supreme Court had underscored the purpose of TIPs: “These parades are held by the police in the course of their investigation for the purpose of enabling witnesses to identify the properties which are the subject-matter of the offence or to identify the persons who are concerned in the offence.” Additionally, the Court referred to Munna Kumar Upadhyay v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2012) 6 SCC 174, reaffirming that TIPs provide corroborative evidence and serve as confirmatory tools in the prosecution’s case.

Acquittal and Conclusion

Concluding that the prosecution's case was "miserably weak", the Supreme Court held: “Sadly, in the present case, the facta probantia fails to sustain and support the alleged factum probando, rendering the prosecution’s case miserably weak. Hence, the evidence led by the prosecution against the accused person is woefully short of the mandate to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.” Accordingly, the Court set aside the convictions, acquitting Thammaraya and Basappa @ Basavaraj.

Cause Title: THAMMARAYA AND ANOTHER V/S THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 649 OF 2013

Date: January-22-2025

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Sandeep Mehta

[Read/Download order]