Pranav B Prem

The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the conviction of three men in a 34-year-old rape case, citing the prosecution's failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP) despite the victim not knowing the accused before or at the time of the alleged offence. The Court also directed the Director General of Police, Jaipur, and the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, to issue necessary instructions to all investigating officers in Rajasthan to conduct TIP in cases where the accused is not known to the victim.

Background of the Case

The case pertained to an incident reported on May 23, 1989, where the victim (PW-1) alleged that three unknown persons entered her house at night, forcibly took her to another location, and raped her. Following the investigation, the Sessions Court, Jaipur, in 1991 convicted the three accused under Sections 376 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment along with fines.

High Court’s Observations

Hearing the appeal against the conviction, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand noted that the victim did not know the accused prior to the incident and had identified them solely based on the names provided by her relatives after the alleged offence. The Court held that in such circumstances, the prosecution was legally obligated to conduct a TIP to establish the accused’s involvement. “The appellants are not some renowned personalities, who could be identified on the ground that prosecutrix was told about their names by her mother-in-law and brother-in-law. When the victim was not aware about the names of the appellants, then how she figured their names in her statements, such factual aspect of the matter is fatal to the case of the prosecution.”

The Court further highlighted the risks of false implication due to flawed investigations, stating that investigating agencies sometimes implicate individuals without legally acceptable evidence to pacify public outrage. The judgment observed that in this case as well, the Investigating Agency had “miserably failed to apprehend or book the real culprits.”

Failure to Conduct TIP and Its Consequences

The Court emphasized the significance of TIP under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, stating: “The idea of holding test identification parade under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of capability to identify an unknown person whom the witness may not have seen. If no test identification parade is held, then it will be wholly unsafe to rely on his/her bare testimony regarding identification of the accused…The identification of the accused by the prosecutrix on the basis of telling her their names by her mother-in-law (PW-2) "N" and brother-in-law (PW-3) "B" is worthless.”

Defence’s Arguments and Court’s Findings

The appellants contended that their names were suggested to the victim by her brother-in-law and mother-in-law after the incident, and they were never previously known to her. It was argued that without a TIP, it could not be legally established that the accused were involved in the crime. The High Court observed that the investigation was flawed as the police failed to conduct a TIP despite knowing that the accused were unknown to the victim. The judgment pointed out contradictions in the prosecution’s case, such as inconsistencies in witness testimonies about lighting conditions at the crime scene and the identification process. Additionally, the Court noted that while the forensic report confirmed the presence of semen on the victim’s clothes, it did not establish that it belonged to the accused. The victim had admitted in cross-examination that her husband had sexual intercourse with her before the incident, further weakening the prosecution’s case.

Court’s Directions to the State

Given the lapses in investigation, the Court directed the state authorities to ensure that all investigating officers conduct TIP in cases where the accused is not known to the victim. It instructed: “Let a copy of the judgment be sent to the Director General of Police, Jaipur and the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Jaipur for issuing necessary and proper instructions, standing order or guidelines to all the Police Investigation Officers of the State to conduct the Test Identification Parade of the accused with the victim in those cases where the accused is not known to the victim.”

Verdict

Considering the lack of legally admissible evidence linking the accused to the crime and the prosecution’s failure to conduct TIP, the High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused.

Cause Title: X v State of Rajasthan

Case No: S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 209/1991

Date: January-31-2025

Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand

[Read/Download order]