SARDAR HARPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Agarwal, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A.

(2.) IT is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that none of the accused were nominated in the first information report nor any description of their per sonality was disclosed therein. The ap plicant is a Sardar (Sikh ). IT is common knowledge that Sardars wear turban or a Patka. Had he been a participant this peculiar description of a Sardar would have been there in the first information report. Even in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. no such descrip tion was disclosed. The identification by the witnesses was claimed by the applicant but that was declined by the Court on the ground as suggested by the prosecution that he has been identified by the witnesses from his photographs. Strange are the ways of investigating agency. This peculiar mode of identification adhered to by the prosecution and accepted by lower Court is not permissible in law. The requirement of Section 9 of the Evidence Act is that an accused is to be subjected to test iden tification if he is not known. IT is impos sible for any Court to obtain a conviction against accused persons on such an iden tification. This kind of identification was permissible against the accused only in cases under TADA. This was never per mitted for the prosecution to be adhered to in the cases under the Indian Penal Code. These are the circumstances which entitle the applicant to be enlarged on bail.