Conduct ID parade immediately on arrest of accused in robbery and dacoity cases: HC

Chennai: The Madras high court has held that in all cases, where the accused is stranger to the victim/witnesses and the latter have seen him for the first time at the commission of the offence, immediately on arrest of such accused, the police to assure themselves that the accused arrested is the person who has actually committed the offence, must seek for a direction from the court having jurisdiction to conduct a test Identification parade.

Justice N.Anand Venkatesh gave the ruling while granting conditional bail to five accused in a robbery and dacoity case.

The case of the prosecution was that on January 1, 2019, at about 11.30 pm when the complainant and his friend were driving a two-wheeler, all these accused persons waylaid them and robbed of Rs 70,000, a wrist watch and the two-wheeler. They were arrested on January 5, 2019.

Additional public prosecutor submitted that these petitioners were identified by the pillion rider of the two wheeler and subsequently, these petitioners were arrested. The police have recovered '20,000, wrist watch and also two-wheeler, during the course of investigation. The investigation has almost been completed and final report will be filed any time, he added.

The judge said this court on a daily basis encounters cases of this nature, where the accused persons were not known to the victim or the complainant. The accused persons were also arrested by the police. However, in none of the cases, this court was able to see that the police takes advantage of section 54A of Cr.P.C (Identification of person arrested), which was inserted by Act 25 of 2005 and which came into force from June 23, 2006.  In all these cases, conducting an ID parade will substantially help the prosecution in nabbing the actual culprits and there will be a meaning in proceeding further against them in the course of investigation. If there was a doubt with regard to the very identity itself, the investigation becomes a wild goose chase, the judge added.

The judge said section 54A of Cr.P.C. specifically empowers the court to direct holding of an identification of the accused person at the request of the prosecution. By following this procedure in cases of this nature, there was at least an assurance for the investigating agency that the investigation was going on in the right direction. That apart, such  identification, will become relevant under section 9 of the Evidence Act and it can be used in criminal proceedings as evidence. “The police personnel needs to be educated on the availability of a provision under Cr.P.C for identifying the accused person. By following this procedure, the element of doubt that arises about identity of the accused for the first time in the court after a long gap, can also be avoided”, the judge added.

The judge said in the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the petitioners have suffered incarceration for more than 35 days and the investigation was almost completed. This court was therefore inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail, the judge added and granted bail and imposed six conditions on them.