Gauhati High Court
Sukur Ali And Anr vs The State Of Assam on 25 May, 2026
Author: Michael Zothankhuma
Bench: Michael Zothankhuma
Page No.# 1/29
GAHC010072872022
2026:GAU-AS:7171-
DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.A./60/2022
SUKUR ALI AND ANR
S/O MD. KASEM ALI,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ANTHAIBARI, PS GOSSAIGAON, DIST
KOKRAJHAR, BTAD, ASSAM
2: NAJIR HUSSAIN
S/O MD. ABU SK.
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ANTHAIBARI
PS GOSSAIGAON
DIST KOKRAJHAR
BTAD
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY PP ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : MS. A. BEGUM, Addl. PP, ASSAM,
Page No.# 2/29
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
Date on which judgment is reserved : 21.05.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 25.05.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the : N/A
operative part of the judgment ?
Whether the full judgment has been : Yes
pronounced?
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
(Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, J)
Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. A.
Begum, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent. None appears
for the respondent No. 2.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned Judgment and Order
dated 11.03.2022 passed by the learned Special Jude (POCSO) Kokrajhar in
Special Case No. 08/2018 convicting the appellants, namely, 1. Sukur Ali 2. Najir
Hussain, under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and under Section 376 D of IPC and
sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years each with
further sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 50000/- each in default to undergo further
imprisonment for 2 years.
Page No.# 3/29
3. The facts leading to the present case is that one xxx, father of the victim
lodged an FIR at Patgaon O.P, alleging that while his daughter had gone to
bring her younger brother from the house of her maternal grandmother,
accused (declared as CCL), Sukur Ali and Atowar Rahman (declared absconder)
dragged his daughter to the Samabay Samiti Office and raped her one by one.
She was found in a unconscious state in Samabay Samiti Office.
4. On receipt of the FIR, a case under Section 120(B)/376(g) of IPC, read
with Section 4 of POCSO Act was registered and after completion of the
investigation, a charge sheet was laid against the accused persons A1 A2, CCL
and one Atowar Rahman for commission of offence under Section 120
(B)/376(g) of IPC, R/W Sec.4 of POCSO Act. Atowar Rahman was
chargesheeted as absconder and since his presence could not be secured
despite coercive processes, he was declared as absconder. In the course of
inquiry, one xxx (named withheld) was found to be a child in conflict with law
and hence the case against was made over to Juvenile Justice Board, Kokrajhar.
5. Upon hearing both sides, charge under Section 376D of IPC, read with
Section 6 of POCSO Act were framed against the accused persons Al and A2
(present appellants) to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Page No.# 4/29
6. In the course of trial, prosecution examined 16 (sixteen) witnesses. At the
closure of prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The defence plea is of total denial and the accused
persons declined to adduce any evidence.
7. At this stage, the evidence of the case may be discussed.
8. PW-1 xxx, victim’s mother deposed that her son, aged about 2 years, had
gone to the house of her mother located near her house. At about 6-30 PM, she
asked her daughter xxx, the victim, aged about 13 years, to bring her son. She
went to bring her son but did not return. After a while, they started searching
for the victim. They found her at about 1-30 AM (night) in the office of Co-
operative Society. Her body was covered with a plastic paper. She was
unconscious. They brought her home and after pouring some water on her face,
she regained her senses. She told them that one of the accused dragged her
and committed rape on her. Later, that accused brought the other two accused
person and then the other two accused also committed rape on her. After
hearing this, in the morning hours, they took their daughter to Jharbari Health
Centre but they could not treat her. Later, they took her to Balagaon Health
Center but there too she was not treated. They then returned home and then in
the evening hours went to Patgaon O.P. Her husband lodged the FIR. Her
Page No.# 5/29
daughter was examined at RNB Civil Hospital, Kokrajhar. She was also produced
before the Magistrate for recording of her statement. Police had seized the
wearing apparel of her daughter. Exhibit- is the seizure list. Exhibit-1(1) is her
signature. M. Ext.1 (collectively) are the seized 5 wearing apparels.
9. In cross examination, PW-1 had deposed that the Cooperative Society
Office is at a distance of 1 minutes’ walk from her home. Some construction was
going on in the Society Office two years prior to the date of occurrence. She
admitted that she does not know the names of the accused persons. She had
personally not gone to Society Office at night to search for her daughter. Her
husband, her brother in law and some other villagers had gone searching her
daughter. She did not accompany her husband to the Police station at the time
of lodging the FIR. It is true that the FIR was lodged on 23.7.2017 at 12 noon.
10. PW-1 admitted that it is a fact that she stated before Police that at night
they made their daughter sleep and did not ask her anything. It is also a fact
that she stated before the Police that on the next morning her daughter
divulged the facts to her.
11. Police had not come to their residence prior to lodging of FIR. The wearing
apparels were seized after lodging of FIR at 6-30 PM. When her daughter was
Page No.# 6/29
brought from Society office she was wearing her dress. She had revealed the
entire incident to her husband. Her daughter did not tell anything to her
husband. She did not know the names of accused nor did she tell the names of
accused to her husband.
12. PW-1 denied the suggestions regarding her omission to state before the
I.O., seeking parts of her statements in her examination-in-chief put to her by
the defense.
13. PW-2 xxx, victim, deposed that she knows the accused persons. About
two years back, her mother had asked her to bring her brother who was in the
residence of her maternal grand-mother. At about 6 PM, when she reached the
society office, CCL, (the victim signified the accused who has been held as child
in conflict with law and case against him has been made over the JJB) gagged
her mouth and dragged her to Society office. He tied her hand and legs and
committed rape on her. Thereafter, he called the present two accused and these
two accused also committed rape on her. She became unconscious and later she
was recovered by her paternal Uncle at night. She was brought home. She
explained the incidents to her mother. On the following day, she was taken to
hospital. She was also produced before the Magistrate for recording of her
Page No.# 7/29
statement under Section 164 CrPC. Exhibit-2 is her statement and Exhibit-1(1)
(2)(3)(4) and (5) are her signatures. She was also medically examined by the
Doctor.
14. In cross examination, PW-2, deposed that the Cooperative Society Office is
at a distance of 1 minutes’ walk from her home. She had seen the accused
persons even before the occurrence. The accused (now in JJB) was also working
as construction worker in their village. The accused persons still visit their
village for construction works. It was not raining when she went to bring her
brother but it was dark at that time and nothing could be seen.
15. She admitted that she had stated before the Police and also before the
Magistrate that an unknown Muslim boy had dragged her to Society and she
does not know his name.
16. She had also stated before the Magistrate that she had not seen the boys
before the occurrence. The boy (now in JJB) who first committed rape on her
was first seen by her at the Police Station. The present two accused were not
arrested at the first instance.
17. She had stated before the Magistrate that at night when her father was
Page No.# 8/29
searching her and calling out her name she could not reply because her mouth
was wrapped.
18. When her father and uncle took her home she was conscious. She was in
a position to speak. She does not know how her father collected the names of
the accused persons named in the FIR. Her wearing apparel was stained with
blood. She had also sustained injuries in her private parts and other parts of
body. She was medically examined after her father went to Police Station. Prior
to that, she was not examined by any Doctor. She deposed that she was not
shown the present two accused persons at Police Station. She also deposed that
there were only three persons in the commission of offence.
19. PW-2 denied the suggestion that she had stated before the Police that out
of three only two persons committed “bad act” with her.
20. PW-2 deposed that the place where the accused committed rape on her
was a house with only roof and no walls. PW-2 also deposed that in her
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C she had not stated that her uncle had
recovered her.
21. PW-2 denied the suggestion that accused persons did not commit rape on
Page No.# 9/29
her. PW-2 also denied the suggestion that they had falsely implicated the
accused persons.
22. PW-3 xxx, victim’s father, deposed that about 2 years back, he had
returned from his works and was taking rest at his house. At that time his
daughter, xxx, had left to bring his son from the residence of his mother-in-law.
At about 9 PM, he realised that his daughter has not returned. He went to the
residence of his mother-in-law and she told her that her daughter has not
attended her home. He then started searching his daughter along with his
brother Madhab Roy. They kept searching but found no trace of her. At about 1-
30 PM, he noticed movement of legs beneath a plastic paper in the Office of
Society. He removed the plastic and saw his daughter lying. She was lying and
bleeding. He immediately took her home. After sprinkling water on her face she
gained her composure and n divulged that the boys working in the camp had
committed rape on her. On the following morning, he took his daughter to
Jharbari Health Centre but there she was not treated. Then they took their
daughter to Kokrajhar Hospital but they refused to treat her without a police
case. They then returned home and then lodged the FIR at Patgaon O.P.
Thereafter, his daughter was taken to Civil Hospital, Kokrajhar where she was
medically treated. While they were returning home after medical treatment they
Page No.# 10/29
received a phone call from Patgaon O.P that two accused have been arrested.
They went to Patgaon O.P where his daughter identified the accused persons.
The third accused who was younger (sent to JJB) was arrested few days later.
He had put thumb impression in the FIR.
23. In cross examination, PW-3 deposed that he had personally not seen the
occurrence. He lodged the FIR on the following day in the afternoon hours. The
FIR was written as per his dictation. The FIR was read over to him. His daughter
did not know the names of the culprits. He had named the accused persons in
the FIR because they were the last lot of labourers working in the Society Office
as per the information given by Chairman.
24. PW-3 deposed that today he cannot identify the accused by their names
but he had named the present two accused persons in the FIR.
25. PW-3 denied the suggestion that he had not named the present two
accused in the FIR.
26. PW-3 has also denied the suggestion that he had stated before the Police
that out of three only two persons committed “bad act” with his daughter.
Page No.# 11/29
27. PW-3 deposed that he had stated before Police that his daughter missing at
4 PM and after searching her she was found at about 2 AM in semi-nude
condition.
28. PW-3 denied the suggestion that he did not state before the Police that at
about 1-30 PM he noticed movement of legs beneath a plastic paper in the
office of Society and that he removed the plastic and saw his daughter lying and
that she was lying and bleeding.
29. PW-4 Mr. Uttam Kumar Ray deposed that he knows the accused persons.
He had seen them in the Patgaon O.P. In the year 2017, pw 3 informed that his
daughter pw 2 has been raped by some persons. On his request, he came to
Patgaon and saw the present two accused persons there. The police had seized
the mobile from the accused persons. He had signed on the seizure list. Exhibit-
3 is the seizure list. Exhibit-3(1) is his signature.
30. PW-5 Ms. Maloti Roy deposed that she knows the accused persons. She
had seen them in Patgaon O.P. In the year 2017, she came to know that pw 2,
daughter of PW-3, has been raped by some persons. On hearing this, she
visited the Patgaon O.P and there on inquiry with PW-2, she told that present
accused persons committed rape on her.
Page No.# 12/29
31. PW-6 Mr. Prahalad Adhikary deposed that he knows the accused persons.
He had seen them in Patgaon O.P. In the year 2017, Kangkan Roy informed him
that daughter of PW-3 has been raped by some persons. He had come to
Patgaon O.P to inform the incident. Later, the accused persons were arrested
and he had come after receiving information of their arrest. Police had seized a
mobile phone from Nazir Hussain. He had signed on the seizure list. Exhibit-3(2)
is his signature in the seizure list.
32. PW-6 denied the suggestion that in his statement under Section 161 CrPC
he had not stated that he had come to Patgaon O.P to inform the incident and
that later the accused persons were arrested and he had come after receiving
information of their arrest.
33. PW-7 Alari Narzary, has deposed that he knows the informant. He had
seen the accused persons but does not know them by their names. About 2
years back, he was informed by PW-3 that accused persons along with one
more person, who were working as Mistri, have raped his daughter, PW-2. He
had inquired from PW-3 and she confirmed that she was raped by the 3 Mistri.
34. PW-7 denied the suggestion that he did not state in his statement under
Section 161 CrPC that he was informed by PW-3 that accused persons along
Page No.# 13/29
with one more persons, who were working as Mistri, have raped her daughter
PW-2 and that he had inquired from PW-2 and she confirmed that she was
raped by the 3 Mistri.
35. PW-9 xxx, paternal Uncle of the victim, deposed that he had seen the
accused persons but does not know them by their names. About 2 years back,
pw 3 informed him that his daughter is missing. They kept searching for her
daughter and at about 2 a.m they found the daughter in Samabay Samiti Office
covered with a plastic sheet. The victim informed that she has been raped by
three persons.
36. In cross examination, PW-9 deposed that PW-2 is his niece. On the date of
occurrence, father of the victim had rebuked her and she had gone out of her
residence. PW-9 deposed that when the victim was recovered she was not in
her senses. She regained her senses on the following day. He had no
conversation with the victim after the occurrence.
37. PW-10, Smt. Jayanti Roy deposed that she knows the accused persons.
They were working as construction worker in their village. About 2 years back,
PW-2, a minor girl of their village, went missing in evening. His father was
looking after her and there was a commotion. Later, PW-2 was found in the
Page No.# 14/29
Camp area. She had gone to the residence of PW-2. PW-2 told that she had
gone to fetch her younger brother from the residence of her grand-mother. On
the way, three construction labourers dragged her and committed rape on her.
Police had seized the wearing apparels of PW-2 and she had signed in the
Seizure list. Exhibit-1(2) is her signature.
38. In cross examination, PW-10 has deposed that her house is very near to
the residence of PW-2. PW-2 went missing at about 10 PM. She came to know
that PW-2 is missing, after 10 PM. When she went to the residence of PW-2, at
about 12 mid-night, she found her in her home. She was able to talk and on
inquiry by her parents she divulged the incident.
39. PW-10 denied the suggestion that she stated before the police that pw 2
told that the construction workers “committed bad Act”.
40. PW-10 denied the suggestion that at night PW-2 was not in a position to
talk. PW-10 deposed that she knows the accused because they were working as
construction workers in their village for last many years.
41. PW-12, Sri Nibash Ray deposed that he knows the accused persons. About
2 years back, he heard sounds coming from the residence of PW-3 that his
Page No.# 15/29
daughter is missing. When he went to the residence of PW-3, he came to know
that victim had gone to the residence of her grandmother to bring her younger
brother but she has not returned. Along with the other villagers, he also went
out in-search of PW-2. They found PW-2 lying near the Somabay Somittee
Office. Her body was covered by a plastic sheet. They brought PW-2 to her
residence and after a while, she told that 3 boys gagged her mouth and
committed rape on her. Later, she came to know that the accused persons have
committed the offence. Exhibit-1(3) is her signature in the seizure list. Material
Exhibit-1 collectively are the wearing apparel of the victim seized by police.
42. In cross examination, PW-12 deposed that that he did not state before
police that the victim divulged the incident before him. He had personally not
seen the occurrence. He had personally not seen who abducted the victim.
Wearing apparel were seized by police at night, at about 2 AM, immediately
after the recovery. He deposed that he knows the accused persons from before
and they are working in their village.
43. PW-13 Monindra Barman and PW-14 NK Manoj Basumatary are witnesses
to the seizure of wearing apparels of the victim.
44. PW-15 Dr. Sushma Brahma deposed that on 22.07.2017 she was posted as
Senior Medical & Health officer at RNB Civil Hospital, Kokrajhar. On that day on
Page No.# 16/29
police requisition, she examined the victim and gave her findings as follows:
Total number of teeth-26, Auxiliary hair- scanty
Pubic hair- nil, Breast- Developed
Injuries, Secondary areola and Secretion – not found.
Mark of violence- not found, Vulva and Vagina-
Developed.
Vaginal Canal- Admit two fingers with difficulty,
Presence of injuries- not found, Hymen- Ruptured.
Final Opinion:- After clinical examination vaginal smear and ossification
test, the following points are noted:-
1. The age of the girl is 12 years old but below 14 years.
2. No injury found on her body and private parts.
3. She has been exposed to sexual intercourse several times previously.
Exhibit-6 is the Medical report and Exhibit-6(1) is her
signature.
45. In cross examination, PW-15 deposed that she had not recorded the
history of the victim. The victim was not subjected to sexual intercourse within
Page No.# 17/29
72 hours, on her examination. If the girl has had sexual intercourse then
spermatozoa may be found within 72 hours, if the girl has not taken bath or
washed her private parts.
46. PW-16, Sri Jitendra Singh deposed that on 23.07.2017 he was posted as
In-charge at Patgaon Police Out Post. On that day he was entrusted with the
investigation of an FIR lodged by PW-3. In the course of investigation, he
recorded the statement of witnesses. He also sent the victim to RNB Civil
hospital, Kokrajhar, for medical examination and took steps for getting the
statement of victim recorded u/S 164 of CrPC. In the
course of investigation, the garments of the victim were sent to FSL for
examination and the report was collected. Accused Sukur Ali, Nazir Hussain and
Sahidul Hoque were arrested and forwarded to Court. Having found sufficient
materials against the accused persons, Sukur Ali, Nazir Hussain, Sahidul Hoque
and Atowar Rahman for commission of offences U/S 120B/376(G) of IPC, R/W
Section 4 of POCSO Act, he submitted a chargesheet against them. Exhibit-7 is
the FIR which was given to him for investigation. In the seizure list Exhibit-3,
Exhibit-3(3) is his signature. In the seizure list Exhibit-1, Exhibit-1(3) is his
signature. In the seizure list Exhibit-4, Exhibit-4(2) is his signature. In the
seizure list Exhibit-5, Exhibit-5(2) is his signature. Exhibit-8 is the charge sheet
Page No.# 18/29
and Exhibit-8(1) is his signature.
47. In cross examination, PW-16 deposed that he found materials against the
4 accused persons in his investigation. The date of occurrence was on
21.7.2017. Accused Nazir and Sukur were brought to Patgaon Police Out Post
before the FIR was lodged. The accused persons were brought to P.S. on
22.7.2017. PW-3 is the father of victim. On 22.7.2017, at 6-40 PM, pw 3 came to
Patgaon Police Out Post and informed about the incident but he had not
mentioned any name of accused persons. In the FIR, 3 accused persons were
mentioned including absconding accused Atowar. The charge sheet was
submitted against 4 accused persons. The information received on 22.7.2017
was not registered as FIR. He had also seized the wearing apparel of accused
Sukur and Sahidul. The wearing apparel of the accused were sent to FSL and
reported that it get positive of human semen but there was no DNA matching.
48. PW-3 did not state before him that he came to know about the accused
persons from the Chairman. PW-3 did not state before him that PW-2 had gone
to his mother-in-law’s house to fetch her brother. PW-3 did not state before him
that at about 9 PM, he realized that his daughter has not returned. PW-3 did not
state before him that he went to the residence of his mother-in-law where he
came to know from his mother-in-law that PW-2 did not come to her house.
Page No.# 19/29
PW-3 did not state before him that he went out with his brother, in search of his
daughter. PW-3 did not state before him that at about 1.30 PM he noticed
movement of leg beneath a plastic paper.
49. PW-1, did not state before him that her daughter told her that one of the
accused dragged her and committed rape on her and later that accused brought
the other two accused and then the other two accused also committed rape on
her. PW-1 did not state before him that in the morning hours she took her
daughter at Jharbari health centre but they could not treat and later they took
her daughter to Balagaon but there too she was not treated and then they
returned home and in the evening hours they went Patgaon Police Out Post.
50. PW-2 stated before him that out of three only and two persons committed
bad act with her. Victim did not mention the name of any accused.
51. PW-5 Maloti Roy did not state before him that on inquiry from PW-2 she
told her that present accused persons committed rape on her.
52. PW-7 Alari Narzary did not state before him that he was informed by PW-2
that she was raped by 3 mistri.
53. PW-10 Jayanti Roy stated before her that construction workers had
committed bad act.
54. PW-12 Nibash Ray did not state before him that the victim divulged the
Page No.# 20/29
incident before him.
55. PW-16 denied the suggestion that they framed the accused persons in this
case.
56. The evidence of the rest is not of much relevance and need not be
discussed.
57. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that besides the fact that
the victim’s evidence itself is full of contradictions, no test identification (TIP)
was arranged by the I.O and it appears from the evidence that the present
accused/appellants were brought by the IO to the police station. Thereafter, he
called the father of the victim, who arrived at the police station along with the
victim where the victim allegedly identified the accused persons as the
perpetrators of the offense. It is submitted that the IO not only failed to follow
the prescribed procedure by conducting the TIP, but took it upon himself to get
the appellants identified as the persons responsible for the offense to the victim
at the police station and therefore, the same cannot be said to be proper
identification. Since the accused/appellants were shown to the victim
beforehand at the police station, the identification of the said appellants by the
victim on the dock at the trial is of no consequence.
58. The learned counsel has also referred to the medical evidence wherein the
Page No.# 21/29
IO as PW-15 has stated in her cross-examination that the victim was not
subjected to sexual intercourse within 72 hours, and since the victim was
examined within 72 hours of the commission of the offense, the medical
evidence does not support the prosecution case.
59. In the course of his arguments, learned counsel has referred to the
decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ranvir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2023) 14 SCC 41, wherein it has been held
as follows:
“36. Having found that Ext. P-28 cannot be believed, we are inclined to
hold that the evidence adduced by the prosecution through the
eyewitnesses also is not trustworthy. The witnesses are not able to name
the accused over which we do not wish to say anything. However, they
have identified the accused, only after 2 to 3 years for the first time in the
court. We are quite conscious about the evidentiary value of a test
identification parade. Certainly, in a case of this nature, it ought to have
been done. Though a test identification parade is not a substantive piece
of evidence, at times, it adds strength to the case of the prosecution by
giving more credibility to the statements of the eyewitnesses which we
find as grossly lacking.
Page No.# 22/29
37. This Court in Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala , held: (SCC pp. 194-95,
paras 28-30)
“28. We may, at the outset, note that the eyewitnesses questioned
by the prosecution did not give out the names or identities of the
accused participating in the riot and involved in the destruction of
public property.
Therefore, the 1O (PW 84) had to necessarily conduct a TIP. The
object of conducting a TIP is threefold. First, to enable the
witnesses to satisty themselves that the accused whom they suspect
is really the one who was seen by them in connection with the
crime. Second, to satisfy the investigating authorities that the
suspect is the real person whom the witnesses had seen in
connection with the said occurrence. Third, to test the witnesses
memory based on first impression and enable the prosecution to
decide whether all or any of them could be cited as eyewitnesses to
the crime (Mulla v. State of U.P., SCC paras 44, 45 & 55).
29. TIPs belong to the stage of investigation by the police. It
assures that investigation is proceeding in the right direction. It is a
rule of prudence which is required to be followed in cases where the
Page No.# 23/29accused is not known to the witness or the complainant (Matru v.
State of U.P., SCC para 17;
Mulla v. State of U.P., SCC paras 41 & 43 and C. Muniappan v. State
of
T.N., SCC para 42). The evidence of a TIP is admissible under
Section 9 of the Evidence Act. However, it is not a substantive piece
of evidence. Instead, it is used to corroborate the evidence given by
witnesses before a court of law at the time of trial. Therefore, TIPs,
even if held, cannot be considered in all the cases as trustworthy
evidence on which the conviction of an accused can be sustained
(State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj, SCC para 3 and C. Muniappan v. State of
T.N., SCC para 42).”
60. Continuing on the point of proper identification, learned counsel has also
referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jafar Vs. State of
Kerala, reported in (2024) 19 SCC 503, wherein the Hon’ble Court observed
that in the absence of proper identification parade being conducted, the
identification for the first time in Court cannot be said to be free from doubt. It
was a case where the witness who identified the accused persons for the first
Page No.# 24/29
time in Court admitted that the police had shown him these two people, and as
such, he has identified them. The facts of the present case also appear to be
similar.
61. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that it
is not always mandatory to conduct a test identification parade, and depending
on the facts and circumstances, identification for the first time in court, can also
be accepted. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon a decision of
the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh in Crl.A No. 21 of 2018:
Arvind Verma & Another Vs. State of J&K, where a Division Bench of the
Hon’ble High Court observed as follows:
“29. Section 9 of the Evidence Act deals with relevancy of facts. It
provides that facts which establish the identity of anything or person
whose identity is relevant, insofar as they are necessary for the purpose,
are relevant. Therefore, it is entirely up to the prosecution to establish the
identity of a thing or a person, which is relevant for the purpose. The
prosecution, in its wisdom, may rely upon the testimonies of witnesses to
prove the identity of a thing or a person. It is well settled in law that Test
Identification Parade remains in the realm of investigation. There is
nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure which mandates to hold Test
Page No.# 25/29Identification Parade. Test Identification Parades are conducted by
investigative agencies, with a view to strengthen the credibility of
witnesses at the stage of investigation only. Neither investigating agencies
are obliged, under CrPC to hold Test Identification Parades nor it is a right
conferred upon the accused to claim Test Identification Parade.”
62. It was further held in the said judgment that identification in the dock is
substantive evidence, and in appropriate cases, the court can accept the
evidence of dock identification without insisting upon a test identification parade
and if a witness had a chance to interact with the accused or an opportunity to
observe the distinctly distinctive features of the accused, evidence of
identification in the court shall be sufficient to prove the identity of the accused.
The aforesaid decision is in line with the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Dana Yadav Vs. State of Bihar , reported in (2002) 7 SCC 295. In the said
decision, it was observed that ordinarily, identification of an accused for the first
time in court by a witness should not be relied upon, the same, being from its
very nature, inherently of a weak character, unless this is corroborated by his
previous identification in a test identification parade or any other evidence.
However, there may be exceptions. For example, when the court is impressed
Page No.# 26/29
by a particular witness on whose testimony it can safely rely without other
corroboration or, if a witness had any particular reason to remember about the
identity of an accused or, where the accused/witness had a chance to interact
with or notice the distinctive features of the accused, which lends assurance to
his testimony in court, the evidence of identification in court for the first time by
such a witness cannot be thrown away merely due to absence of a test
identification parade.
63. The crux of the matter in the instant case is the proper identification on
the perpetrators of the offense. The victim/P.W.2, who is a minor girl of about
14 years, had deposed in her cross-examination that she had seen the
accused/appellants before the occurrence and that they used to visit her village
for construction work. But she also admitted having stated before the Magistrate
that she had not seen any of the boys (accused persons) before the occurrence,
which contradicts her claim to have seen them prior to the occurrence. The
further aspect of the matter is that, although the victim stated that she was not
shown the present two accused/appellants at the police station, the said version
is contradicted by the version of her own father, who is P.W.3, who stated that
while they were returning home after medical treatment, they received a phone
call from the Patgaon OP, that two accused persons had been arrested, and they
went to Patgaon OP where his daughter, i.e., the victim, identified the accused
Page No.# 27/29
persons.
64. From the above, it would be safe to conclude that it was at the police
station that the present accused/appellants were shown to the victim, who
identified them as the perpetrators of the offense. Therefore, the question that
begs an answer is, on what basis was the identification made. Normally, of
course, it would be on the basis of having seen them from close quarters during
the rape encounter. But in the instant case, the victim stated in cross-
examination that at that time, it was dark and nothing could be seen.
65. When, from her own evidence, it is established that she had not seen the
perpetrators prior to the occurrence, it is difficult to believe that she would
remember/recall the faces of not one, but three complete strangers whom she
encountered, albeit at close quarters, in total darkness where going by her own
version, nothing could be seen. There is no other evidence to suggest the
presence of any kind of light, natural or otherwise, at the place of occurrence,
which would have helped her in noticing and identifying the faces of the
perpetrators.
66. From the above, it appears that the victim identified the
accused/appellants as the perpetrators of the offense only because they were
shown to her by the police.
Page No.# 28/29
67. The accused/appellants have been charged under the provisions of the
POCSO Act, which, by virtue of Section 29, raises a presumption of guilt upon
the accused persons and casts a burden upon the accused to rebut the said
presumption. In this regard, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Debraj Dutta Vs. The
State of West Bengal & Anr., reported in Crl.A No. __ of 2026 (@
SLP(Crl.) No. 16838 of 2025), decided on 07.04.2026, held as follows:
“15. Unless the testimony of a victim child is found to be fully credible
and trustworthy, the question of applying the presumption on the strength
of such statement alone would not arise. The foundational fact of a sexual
assault that would attract the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO
Act would require more than PW-1’s statement which, on the face of it,
was not credible as what she had stated to her mother was not borne out
by her own statement before the trial court.”
68. In the present case, as discussed above, in view of the failure of the
prosecution to establish the foundational fact, that it was none other but the
present accused/appellants who were the perpetrators of the offense, by proof
of proper identification, it cannot be said that the prosecution has established
the foundational facts, implicating the present appellants, and therefore, the
presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act cannot be said to have arisen,
Page No.# 29/29
requiring the appellants to rebut the same.
69. It is also noticed that the learned Trial Court, while dealing with this
aspect of the matter, failed to notice or record any finding with regard to the
absence of light at the time and place of occurrence, which goes to the very
essence of the question of proper identification.
70. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the appeal
deserves to succeed and accordingly, the impugned Judgment & Order as well
as the sentence imposed are hereby set aside and the appellants are acquitted
of the offences under which they have been convicted. They be set at liberty
forthwith.
71. Appeal stands allowed accordingly.
72. Send back the TCR.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant
