In Brief
Six accused were convicted of dacoity and related offences after attacking a family in their home at night and stealing jewellery, resulting in the death of the family patriarch. The appellants challenged their convictions, arguing that eyewitness identification was unreliable due to: initial inability to identify assailants, delay in test identification parade, and prior exposure to photographs. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions, holding that substantive evidence of identification comes from in-court testimony. Since five injured witnesses had close contact with the assailants and consistently identified them in court, their evidence was reliable. The Court held that test identification parades are merely investigative aids, not mandatory, and no invariable rule applies to the timing of such parades or number of witnesses needed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.