KHURVESH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment and / or order dated 01.06.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi dismissing the petitioner's Criminal Appeal No. 17/2006 which, in turn, was preferred against the judgment and / or order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 394 IPC and a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- was imposed upon him.

(2.) The facts as indicated in the impugned order read as under:-

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the point that the petitioner was not properly identified and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He submitted that PW-2 [Vivek Khanna] had admitted in his cross-examination that the photograph of the petitioner was shown to him before his Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted. He also submitted that the other material witness, PW-3 [Virender Kumar] has also admitted that his eye-sight was weak for close distances. It is on the basis of these submissions that the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the conviction of the petitioner be set aside on the ground that the petitioner was not properly identified. He placed before this court a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ravindra @ Ravi Bansi Gohar v. State of Maharashtra: 1998 [2] JCC [SC] 107 wherein it was clearly indicated that showing of photographs prior to TIP would negate the very purpose and object of identifying the accused in a TIP and, therefore, would render the identification of the accused in such circumstances useless.