V Semester B.Com. LL.B (Hons.

) 

Aftab Khan v. State Of Madhya Pradesh

(Criminal Appeal No. 653/2006)

Law of Evidence: Ms. Trisha Mittal

Prepared & Submitted By

Kunal Agarwal(17bbl023)
Laghima Jain (17bbl024)
Mahima Chaudhary (17bbl025)
Mahima Jain (17bbl026)
Malika Tiwari (17bbl027)
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SR. NO. TITLE PG. NO.

1. Section 9 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Explained 2

2. Brief Facts of the Case 6

3. The Previous Judgement referred 7

4. Arguments Advanced 11

5. Legal Provisions 14

6. Principle Propounded 18

7. Case Analysis 20

1
 SECTION 9- INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

Facts are relevant and admissible in so far as they are necessary for the purpose mentioned in
each category of Section 9 which are as following:
1. Facts which are necessary to explain a fact in issue or relevant fact
There are many pieces of evidence which if considered alone/separately would not
render any meaning but becomes relevant if considered in connection with some other
facts. It may result in strengthening of the evidence given by one side or may break
the force of the evidence given by the other side.
For example- A was tried for abducting a girl, B. During investigation in the police
station, A was loitering around and B saw him and started crying. B told everything to
her brother and later he told about A to the police officer who arrested him. B’s
brother explained every instance of that day in the court when A was arrested. Hence,
the statement made by B’s brother in the court was admissible as explaining the
circumstances of A’s arrest and for the purpose of establishing his identity.

2. Facts which are necessary to introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact

Facts which are introductory nature of a relevant fact are of great importance which
may lead to the real nature of transaction. Practically, it would be difficult to base a
trial by just knowing the main fact which is relevant. The introductory fact is required
in supplying the missing link.
For example- A sues B for a libel imputing disgraceful conduct to A. B affirms that
the matter alleged to be libellous is true. The position and relations of the parties at
the time when the libel was published may be relevant facts as introductory to the
facts in issue. The particulars of a dispute between A and B about a matter
unconnected with the alleged libel are irrelevant, though the fact that there was a
dispute may be relevant if it affected the relations between A and B.

3. Facts which support/rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant

fact

2
 There are certain set of facts which are neither relevant as fact in issue nor as relevant
facts. They either support the inference suggested by the fact in issue or relevant fact
or contradict the fact in issue or relevant for the purpose for which they are relevant.
For example- A is accused of murder. Just after committal of offence, A ran away
from the village to Delhi. At the trial of A for murder, the fact that he ran away just
after the occurence supports the inference that the murder might have been caused by
him or he had some concern with the offence. It is relevant.
If A adduces some evidence proving that he had an urgent piece of work in Delhi and
in connection with that he went there then it will rebut the inference drawn from the
fact that he ran away to Delhi.

4. Facts which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is

relevant
The identification of articles is capable of being established not only by direct
evidence but also by establishing circumstances. In case of facts which establish the
identity of anything, their relevance will be obvious.
For example- If A is charged with the murder of B by shooting him from a pistol, and
the pistol is recovered from A and a bullet from B’s body, that the bullet was fired
from that pistol must be established as one of the circumstances before A can be
found gulity.
For example- If A is charged with the theft of a diamond from a museum, and the
diamond is not in the place where it is usually kept in the museum and the diamond is
found in the possession of A and A has not enough evidence to show the ownership of
the diamond, the diamond in possession of A is the same diamond kept in museum
must be established as one of the circumstances before A can be found guilty.

The identity of a person as a doer of a particular act comes up in every criminal case
where the prosecution has to establish that it was the accused who committed the
crime. One of the methods to establish the identity of a person as the doer of the
particular act is by means of ‘Identification Parades’. The purpose of Test

3
 Identification Parade (TIP) is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of the
evidence of the witness and this evidence is used for corroboration. It is not
obligatory and the accused has no right to insist upon it. If TIP is happening then
there should be no delay in holding it in order to eliminate the possibility of the
accused being shown to the witnesses. The evidence of an identification parade held
by the police cannot be given because the identification amounts to telling directly to
the police about the person who committed the crime and under section 162 CrPC,
evidence of a statement made to the police during investigation cannot be given,
generally. So, in order to make such evidence corroborative, the TIPs are held in the
presence of a Magistrate, who is a judicial officer.
Also the age, size, height, hair, complexion of the person can be a useful material for
identification of the accused person. Any other physical marks might also be helpful
in identifying the person. In certain cases, even identification by voice is useful and
can be reliable.

5. Facts which fix the time or place at which the facts in issue or relevant fact
happened
Facts which are necessary to fix the time or place or both of the occurrence are
relevant. The fact of time or place becomes important and necessary when the
accused pleads alibi.
For example- A was murdered and B is the accused. The main issue is whether A was
murdered by B. To prove the guilt/innocence of B, it must be proved that at what time
A was murdered as it is necessary that B must be present near A at the time of
murder. If the time of murder is not known it cannot be said that B murdered A. If A
was murdered in Calcutta at 11 pm on 31st October, 2001 and if it is proved that B
was in Mumbai at 11 pm on the same day, then B cannot kill A. Hence, these facts fix
time and place of the facts in issue or relevant facts are relevant.

6. Facts that show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted.
Any fact which shows the relationship of parties by whom the fact in issue or relevant

4
fact are transacted are relevant.
For example- A’s car was stolen. Police conducted a search in the city and found the
car with a particular registration number which shows that the car belongs to A.

5
 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

● On the date of 11/03/2006 at about 5:30 PM, the complainant Kamal Singh (PW-1)
lodged a report, to the effect that his cousin brother Rajesh had called him around
5:30 PM and informed him that the prosecutrix who is the daughter of Kamal Singh is
lying in a pool of blood near Luharpura Culvert.
● The complainant along with his cousin brother went to the place of incident and found
that the prosecutrix was lying in a pool of blood with multiple injuries and there was
bleeding from her private part.
● The complainant brought prosecutrix back to his house and went to Police Station
Kotwali where FIR was lodged.
● Some unknown persons had committed rape on prosecutrix and the police on the
basis of the statement of witnesses as well as Test Identification Parade of the
appellant filed charge-sheet for an offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code.
● The Trial Court by order dated 10/06/2006 framed charge under Section 376 of the
IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty.
● The Trial Court, after hearing both the parties, convicted the appellant for an offence
under Section 376 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment by judgment dated
26/08/2006.
● The Trial Court judgment was challenged by the appellant in the High Court.

6
 PREVIOUS JUDGMENT REFERRED

● Identification As Corroborative Evidence

Mukesh and another Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) 6 SCC 1
○ Test Identification Parade(TIP) can only be used for corroboration and they do
not constitute substantive evidence in the court.
○ The CrPC does not include any express provision obliging the investigative
agency to hold such a parade. However, these parades are essentially governed
by Section 162 of the CrPC. The Test Identification Parade belongs to the
stage of investigation which is conducted by the police.
○ The accused is not conferred with any right to claim a test identification
parade.
○ Failure to hold a test identification parade would not make inadmissible the
evidence of identification in court. However, 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. The
identification of the accused either in test identification parade or in Court is
not a sine qua non in every case, if from the circumstances the guilt is
otherwise established.
○ The court in various cases has laid down the proposition of law that even if
there is no previous TIP, the court may appreciate the dock identification and
rely solely upon it as being conclusive.

● About Test Identification Parade

Prakash v. State of Karnataka (2014) 12 SCC 133
○ Relying on the SC of Canada in the case of Marcoulx v R(1976), the court has
laid down 2 types of identification procedure adopted by the police during pre-
trial identification evidence of the accused by the victim:
1) Show-up of single suspect
2) Line up presentation of the suspect as part of the group.
○ TIP is not mandatory and cannot be claimed as a right by the accused.

7
 ○ The main purpose of conducting TIP by the investigative agency is to ensure
that the investigation is going on in the right direction and which by way of
corroboration of evidence would help the prosecution in the court.
○ TIP is generally used when the suspect is a complete stranger to the witness or
victim. However, TIP is not necessary if the suspect is known to the witness or
victim, or they have been shown a photograph of the suspect or the suspect has
been exposed to the public by the media.

● Conduct Of Victim During Tip

Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2011) 3 SCC 654
○ It is a well-settled proposition that when an accused is identified in the court
by the witness it acts as a substantive piece of evidence.
○ TIP is conducted to strengthen the trustworthiness of the evidence i.e. helps to
corroborate.
○ The court in this case has placed major reliance on its judgement in the case of
Malkhansingh & ors. v. State of M.P. (2003) where the court has held: Facts
which establish the identity of the accused person are relevant under Sec. 9
IEA.
○ General Rule: Statements made in the court act as substantive evidence.
However, the mere identification of the accused at the trial for the first time is
of weak character. Here the TIP conducted prior to the trial helps to test and
strengthen its evidentiary value. Also known as the Safe rule of Prudence.
○ The exception to the rule of prudence is when the court believes no
corroboration is required to establish the case and that it can solely rely upon
the testimony of the witnesses.
○ The court relied on the case of Pramod Mandal v. State of Bihar (2004) and
observed that, it is not possible or prudent to lay down an invariable rule as to
the fixed period within which TIP should be conducted or number of witnesses
to correctly identify the accused to sustain his conviction.

8
 ○ The court of fact has to decide upon the acceptability or rejection of the
identification by considering all aspects and evidence of the case. If such a rule
is laid down it would act as a passage to escape for the professional criminals.

Mulla & anr. v. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC 508

○ TIP is primarily meant for the investigation process and not for the courts.
○ Object of TIP has been laid down in two-folds:
1st: To enable the witnesses to satisfy themselves that the accused whom they
suspect is really the one who was seen by them in connection with the
commission of the crime.
2nd: To satisfy the investigating authority that the suspect is the real person
whom the witnesses had seen in connection with the said occurrence.
○ Once the objects are satisfied, the principles regarding the TIP emerge.
○ TIP should be conducted as soon as possible to avoid any mistake on the part
of witnesses.
○ The above condition can be revoked if proper explanation justifying the delay
is given. The authorities must make sure that the delay does not result in
exposure of the accused which may lead to mistakes on the part of witnesses.

● On Sentencing And Punishment

Shyam Narain v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 7 SCC 77
○ The award of sentencing is consequential and incidental to conviction.
○ Sentencing for any offence acts as a social goal and is imposed according to
the nature of the offence and the manner in which it has been committed by
considering all the relevant facts and circumstances.
○ The principle that the accused must realise the act he has committed and its
forbearance of the social fabric acts as the fundamental purpose of imposition
of sentence. It serves as a deterrent.
○ Even if the accused is given opportunities to reform oneself, the principle of
proportionality between the offence committed and the penalty imposed have

9
 to be looked at together. The court has to see a collective impact of the act on
the society as a whole and the repercussions on the victim.
○ The above-stated has also been stated in the Friedman’s Law in Changing
Society.
○ The Object of punishment has been stated in Halsbury's Laws of England
which lays emphasis on the principle of deterrence as an important aspect of
punishment. It aims at deterring not only the actual offender for future
offences but also the potential offenders from breaking the law in the future.
○ Further, it has been observed in various cases that punishments should not be
rationalised on judicial discretion but on the basis of facts and circumstances
in which the crime was committed.

Raj Bala v. State of Haryana (2016) 1 SCC 463

○ The objective parameters of law which suggest the primary objective of

criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just and proportionate punishment
in parlance with the nature of crime and the manner in which it was committed
by keeping in mind the interest of society as a whole.
○ The wisdom of judicial discretion empowered on the court has to exercised
rationally and reasonably. The judge has to strike a balance between the rule of
law and the principle of proportionality.

10
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

The appellant challenged the judgment of the Trial Court, giving the following submissions –
1. The prosecution has failed to prove that the witnesses have duly identified the
appellant
The counsel submitted that since the prosecutrix could not identify the appellant in
the Test Identification Parade conducted by the police, it is clear that the appellant
was not the person, who had committed rape.

2. The identification conducted by the police during the investigation is not

reliable.

3. The dock identification of the appellant cannot be relied upon.

4. The life imprisonment awarded by the Trial Court is on the higher side.
The counsel submitted that as per Section 376 of IPC, the minimum sentence for
committing rape of a woman below the age of 16 years is 10 years. Since the
appellant has been in jail for more than eleven and a half years, he has already
undergone the actual sentence provided by the law. Thus, the life imprisonment
awarded by the Trial Court is on the higher side.

5. The appellant has an alibi.

In order to prove the alibi of the appellant, the counsel examined Naushad Khan who
stated that the appellant was working as his employee in his shop at the time of the
occurrence.

Thus, the counsel pleaded before the court that the appellant is an innocent person and has
been falsely implicated for the commission of the offence of rape.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTRIX

11
At the stage of trial and appeal, the prosecution examined the following witnesses and some
other witnesses to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt –
1. Ayodhya Prasad (PW 2) stated that one person had come with a minor girl and had
taken a toffee from a shop and that after some time, he got the information of the
rape. This witness identified the appellant in the police station as well as in the Dock.
About the Test Identification Parade, this witness stated that the bodies of all the
persons were covered by a blanket and only their faces were visible. Further, he stated
that no police personnel was present inside the jail at the time of identification.

2. The prosecutrix (PW 4) stated that a man had given her chocolate and money, took
her to a public toilet and thereafter did an indecent act with her. She identified the
appellant in the dock and denied the proposition that she has been tutored by her
mother to narrate these facts.

3. Rishabh Vijay (PW 5) stated that he saw a person coming out of the public toilet
who was wearing underwear and was holding his pants in his hand and thereafter, he
ran away. He also stated that this person had a bloodstain on his shirt.
This witness had identified the appellant to be this person in the Test Identification
Parade conducted by the police as well as in the dock.

4. H.N. Karnwal (PW 6) was the Nayab Tahsildar who had conducted the Test
Identification Parade and he stated that Rishabh Vijay had identified the appellant.
Also, he stated that no police personnel was present at the time of the Parade.

5. K.D. Sharma (PW 9) was the Tahsildar. He stated that he had conducted the Test
Identification Parade of the appellant and that Ayodhya Prasad had identified the
appellant in the Parade. Also, no police personnel was present during the Parade.

12
 6. Dr. Sunita Jain (PW 11) medically examined the prosecutrix and denied the
proposition that no rape was committed to her.

Thus, considering the statements of the witnesses examined, the following submissions were
made on behalf of the counsel for the State –
1. The witnesses had duly identified the appellant in the Test Identification Parade
conducted by the police.

2. The witnesses and the prosecutrix have identified the appellant in the Court.
The prosecutrix has clearly pointed towards the appellant in the dock to be the man
who committed the indecent act with her.

3. The ocular evidence is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of PW 11.

Hence, the counsel pleaded before the court to dismiss the appeal owing to the finding that it
is the appellant who has committed the rape of the prosecutrix.

13
 LEGAL PROVISIONS DISCUSSED

1. Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Under Section 9 following facts are relevant:

a) Facts which are necessary to explain a fact in issue or relevant fact
b) Facts which are necessary to introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact
c) Facts which support/rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact
d) Facts which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is
relevant
e) Facts which fix the time or place at which the facts in issue or relevant fact
happened
f) Facts that show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted.

The case discusses the evidentiary value and importance of the Test Identification
Parade. The role of the witness is very important in establishing the identity of the
accused. One of the methods of such establishment is the Test Identification Parade.
In regard to the admissibility of the Test of Identification Parade, they are relevant by
virtue of Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act. A part of this section explains about
the Test Identification Parade. Test Identification Parade is done at the stage of
investigation and is considered an integral part of an investigation and if adequate
precautions are ensured, the evidence with regard to test identification parade may be
used by the Court for the purpose of corroboration.

“As a general rule, substantive evidence of a witness is the statement made in the
court. The evidence of mere identification of the accused person as the trial for the
first time is from its very nature inherently of a weak character. The purpose of a
prior test identification, therefore, is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of that
evidence. It is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for
corroboration of the sworn testimony of the witnesses in court as to identify of

14
 accused who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier identification proceedings.”

2. Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Test Identification Parade is only a part of the investigation process under section 162
CRPC. They are essentially governed by the proviso of this section. Test
Identification Parade conducted by police is used to strengthen and test the veracity of
substantive evidence. Although the failure to hold the Test Identification Parade
might not have any effect of weakening the evidence of identification in the Court or
make it inadmissible. Police officers should not be present at the time of the
identification parade. If it is conducted in the presence of a police officer, it amounts
to a statement within the meaning of Sec. 162 Cr.P.C and becomes inadmissible in
evidence. It cannot be used for the purpose of corroboration.

In the present case, it is explained that: “The prosecutrix could not identify the
appellant in the Test Identification Parade conducted by the police. The inability of
the prosecutrix to identify the appellant in the Test Identification Parade conducted
by the police is concerned, it is clear from the Test Identification Parade Memo, that
a note was appended by the Tahsildar to the effect that the prosecutrix is minor and
she is frightened and, therefore, she could not identify. When the evidence of the
prosecutrix was being recorded by the Trial Court, it was noticed by the Trial Court
that the prosecutrix looked at the appellant after great persuasion. She immediately
identified the appellant as the person who committed rape on her.
Also, the appellant was duly identified by Ayodhya Prasad (PW-2), Prosecutrix (PW-
4) and Rishabh Vijay (PW-5) in the Dock, whereas Ayodhya Prasad (PW-2) and
Rishabh Vijay (PW-5) had identified the appellant in the Test Identification Parade
conducted by the police also.”

Hence, the Test Identification Parade conducted by concerned police is a

15
 corroborative piece of evidence supporting the substantive piece of evidence, i.e.,
Identification or Statements made in the Court.

3. Section 54A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

After the amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure in 2005, Section 54A was
inserted for the identification of a person arrested. It enables the police to seek the
permission of the Court for identification of the accused and the Court may determine
the manner of identification which includes identification parade. It is done at the
investigation stage and the police are not bound to conduct it.

Under this section, the Court having jurisdiction can direct the arrested person, on the
request of the officer in charge, to be a part of the Test Identification Parade in the
manner as the Court prescribes.

4. Section 376(1) of Indian Penal Code, 1860

Whoever, except in the cases provided for in sub-section (2), commits rape, shall be
punished with rigorous imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not
be less than seven years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall
also be liable to fine.

The measure of punishment in a rape case cannot depend upon the social status of the
victim or the accused. It must depend upon the conduct of the accused, age of the
victim, the gravity of the crime and its effect on the whole society. Crimes of violence
against women need to be dealt with severely. The socio-economic status, religion,
race, caste or creed of the accused or victim are irrelevant in sentencing policy.
Protection of society and deterring the criminal is the avowed object of the law and
that is to be achieved by imposing an appropriate sentence.

16
The present case itself states that: “Every child, be a boy or girl, has a fundamental
and human right to live his/her childhood with all freedoms. The incident has left so
much of an adverse impact on the mind of the prosecutrix, that she was even afraid of
looking at the appellant. This Court can only imagine the horrifying experience of the
prosecutrix and its impact on her young, innocent mind. We cannot allow humanity to
die. The effect and aftermath of rape may include both physical and psychological
trauma. The possibility of the development of post-traumatic stress disorder in the
rape victim cannot be ruled out. The subsequent conduct of the prosecutrix clearly
indicates that she was afraid of the appellant with horrible memories of the incident.
The effects of trauma may be short term or long term after sexual assault or rape.
The common emotional effects of sexual assault may be loss of trust in others, shock,
fear, sense of insecurity, hopelessness, etc. and if a minor girl aged about 6 years is
compelled to undergo such mental trauma apart from the physical trauma, then even
the time may not heal the injury sustained by the prosecutrix. The principle of
proportionality between an offence committed and the penalty imposed are to be kept
in mind, therefore, the Court must try to visualize the impact of the offence on the
society as a whole as well as on the victim.”

17
 PRINCIPLE PROPOUNDED

Two principles have been propounded in the present case by taking into consideration
several judicial pronouncements. They are as following-

1. Evidentiary Value and Importance of “Test Identification Parade”

A moot question for determination before the court was whether the appellant, who
has committed the offence or not? After considering the statements of the prosecution
witnesses and all the other evidence present before the court, the court thoroughly
discussed test identification parade.
The main purpose of such a parade from the point of view of the police is to provide
them with fairly strong evidence of identity on which to proceed with their
investigations and to base an eventual prosecution. The advantage of identification
parades from the point of view of the trial is that, by giving the witness a number of
persons from among whom to choose, the prosecution seems to dispose of once and
for all the question whether the defendant in the dock is, in fact, the man seen and
referred to by the witness.
The court was of the opinion that “it is a well-established principle of law that the
Test Identification Parade conducted by the police, at the best, can be treated as a
corroborative piece of evidence but the substantive piece of evidence is an
identification of the appellant in the dock”.
The identification parades belong to the stage of an investigation, and there is no
provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure which obliges the investigating agency
to hold, or confers a right upon the accused to claim a test identification parade. They
do not constitute substantive evidence and these parades are essentially governed by
Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Failure to hold a test identification
parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in court. The
weight to be attached to such identification should be a matter for the courts of fact."

18
2. How to decide “Question of Sentence”
After the Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in
establishing the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, held
the appellant guilty of committing the offence under Section 376 of IPC, the court
heard on the question of sentence. The appellant asked for leniency in the sentencing
period and asked the court to reduce the sentence from life imprisonment.
The court was of the opinion that “Under the circumstances of the present case, any
leniency shown to the appellant would be nothing but adding insult to the injury
sustained by the prosecutrix. Deterrence is one of the essential ingredients of
sentencing policy. The principle of proportionality between an offence committed and
the penalty imposed are to be kept in mind, therefore, the Court must try to visualize
the impact of the offence on the society as a whole as well as on the victim.
Primarily, it is to be borne in mind that sentencing for any offence has a social goal.
The sentence is to be imposed regard being had to the nature of the offence and the
manner in which the offence has been committed. The fundamental purpose of the
imposition of the sentence is based on the principle that the accused must realise that
the crime committed by him has not only created a dent in his life but also a concavity
in the social fabric. The purpose of just punishment is designed so that the individuals
in the society which ultimately constitute the collective do not suffer time and again
for such crimes.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court was of
the considered opinion that the Life Sentence awarded by the Trial Court is just and
proper, and does not call for any interference.

19
 CASE ANALYSIS

The judgment of the lower court was rightly upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in Aftab Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

One of the important features of Test Identification Parade is that it is not a substantive piece
of evidence and it only assures that the investigatory process is progressing on right lines.
TIP is a part of the investigatory process under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973. The same has been stated in the judgment that TIP before police is only a
corroborative piece of evidence and identification of accused in dock is substantive evidence.

The point that during the TIP by police, the prosecutrix looked at the appellant only after
great persuasion does not make much difference as she correctly identified the appellant in
the dock, before the court and such identification in the court is a substantive piece of
evidence on the basis of which conviction can be made. In State of A.P. v. V.K. Venkata
Reddy, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India categorically held that the evidence given by a
witness in a court of law is substantive testimony while the identification made by the
witness in the TIP is only confirmatory of the testimony made before a court of law.

Further, a judgment against the appellant could have been given by the Hon'ble court even in
the absence of a TIP of other witnesses. The testimony of the prosecutrix herself is enough
for the conviction of the appellant. This is because of two reasons -
1. A conviction can be made even on the testimony of one witness
2. Conducting of TIP is not mandatory.
This was held in the case of Dastagir Singh v. State of Karnataka, where X was raped
by A, and X was able to see A due to the proximity involved in the commission of
crime. Here, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, held that, to say that, TIP is
necessary to test the veracity, reliability and memory of X, will be incongruous and
farcical because in offences such as that of rape, the victim herself is a “natural

20
 witness”. Since the prosecutrix is a natural witness in the present case, there is no
mandate of conducting TIP for other witnesses.

According to Bhaskar Virappa Kanchan State of Maharashtra Times TIP can be conducted
even in a police station, provided, the place of identification is completely separate from the
police office; police officials have no access to the place where TIP is being conducted; there
was no opportunity for the identifying witnesses to see the accused/suspect before the TIP;
and there is nothing on record to state that the accused/suspect was shown to the identifying
witnesses prior to the TIP. Since, the testimonies of PW2, PW6 and PW9 clearly show that
no police personnel was present at the time of TIP, TIP was properly conducted in the
present case.

It is a general principle that appreciation of evidence obtained vide the TIP route depends
upon the strength and trustworthiness of the witnesses. In the present matter, no
contradictions have been found in the testimonies of witnesses. Also, the alibi presented by
the appellant has failed. Further, the prosecutrix has identified the appellant in the dock.
Considering all these factors, the conviction was rightly upheld and the court's decision of
awarding life imprisonment was just according to the principle of proportionality as the facts
and circumstances of the present case required such a punishment and no leniency could
have been shown by the court.

21