The Important Judgment Of SC In The Murder Case

The important judgment of the Supreme Court in the murder case, cannot be convicted on refusal to attend an identification parade.

The Supreme Court said in an important judgment on Tuesday that an accused cannot be convicted on the grounds of refusal only to attend the identification parade.

The bench said – Identification parade is not a concrete proof

A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Indira Banerjee said in the case against the culprits of the murder.

“There is no special provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure or Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which confers statutory rights to the identified parade.

‘The bench said since the identification parade is not concrete evidence, not having it done does not make the evidence of identity inadmissible.

The court will look at verifiable material of concrete nature before coming to a conclusion about the blame of the accused.

Prosecution appeal: denial of participation in an identification parade

In other words, the identification parade is a test of the recollection of witnesses by the prosecution to see if any or all of them can be presented as eyewitnesses to the crime.

The prosecution had argued that the accused had refused to attend the identification parade and this was proof of their conviction.

The culprits of the murder knocked on the door of the Supreme Court

A law student of Maharishi Dayanand University in Rohtak was shot dead near the university by a group of attackers. The student later died. The deceased student’s father was an eyewitness to the attack.

He claimed that he would recognize them if the attackers were presented before him.

In June 2012, the appellants Rajesh and Ajay Hooda as well as Sahroopit were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the sessions court.

He appealed against the verdict in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, but the High Court dismissed the appeal. The accused then approached the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court gave the appellants a defect-free

The apex court also raised doubts over the presence of two prominent eyewitnesses of the case. Also, the ballistic evidence of the bullets and empty kiosks found from the body of the deceased did not match.

The apex court said that the prosecution failed to prove the case and held the appellants free of blame. Also said that he has already spent 12 years in jail.