State of Maharashtra Vs. Syed Umar Sayed Abbas & Ors.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 , Section 307 , Section 120-B , Section 34 , The Arms Act,1959 - Section 25 , Section 27 , Section 29
Appeal against Acquittal - Test Identification Parade - Testimonies of the witnesses suffer various infirmities and contradictions - Test Identification Parade was not conducted properly and was delayed - High Court held to be correct in giving the benefit of doubt to the accused as their identity had not been clearly established by the prosecution.
Test Identification Parade - Incident of firing occurred in the circumstances wherein much time was not available for the eye- witnesses to clearly see the accused - It was of much more importance that the Test Identification Parades were to be conducted without any delay -First Test Identification Parade was held by PW21 after about 1½ months of the incident -Second Test Identification Parade was conducted by PW18 after more than a year of the incident - Even if it is taken into account that A12 was arrested after a year and within one month thereafter the test Identification Parade was conducted, still it is highly doubtful whether the eye-witnesses could have remembered the faces of the accused after such a long period.
Test Identification Parade - Incident of firing occurred in the circumstances wherein much time was not available for the eye- witnesses to clearly see the accused - Though the incident took place in broad daylight, the time for which the eye-witnesses could see the accused was not sufficient for them to observe the distinguishing features of the accused, especially because there was a commotion created after the firing and everyone was running to shelter themselves from the firing.
Topic(s)-Murder - Test Identification Parade - Acquittal