In this legal case, the appellant was accused and convicted based on a 2014 judgment by the Delhi High Court. The court upheld the conviction after dismissing the appellant’s appeal against the judgment. The appellant and three co-accused were tried together for offenses, including robbery and assault. The incident involved the four accused cornering the victim and his friend, robbing them at knifepoint, and causing injuries. The prosecution alleged that the appellant was one of the assailants.
The trial revolved around the identification of the accused. The appellant and some co-accused refused to participate in a Test Identification Parade (TIP), where witnesses could identify the suspects. The prosecution argued that the refusal itself could be considered as evidence. The court considered various legal principles related to identification evidence, including the relevance of TIPs and the admissibility of statements made by accused persons during investigation.
The High Court found the appellant guilty based on the identification made by the victim in court. The appellant’s argument that the identification was unreliable due to a lack of TIP was rejected. The court emphasized that while the TIP was relevant, the appellant’s conduct and statements during the investigation were also important in assessing guilt.
Despite the appellant’s claims that statements made during the investigation shouldn’t be admissible, the court deemed them relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. Ultimately, the court upheld the conviction, stating that there was sufficient evidence to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Please note that this is a simplified summary for SEO purposes and may not include all the legal intricacies of the case.
MUKESH SINGH …APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) …RESPONDENT decided by the Supreme Court of India on August 24, 2023