In CRR No.598 of 2009 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- Court identification itself is good identification in eyes of law; Merely because test identification parade was not conducted it does not affect identification of accused by eye-witness: P&H HC
Justice Pankaj Jain [18-10-2022]

Read Order: Roshan Singh v. State of Punjab 

Monika Rahar 

Chandigarh, October 19, 2022: While dismissing a revision petition impugning the concurrent orders of the lower courts finding the petitioner-truck driver guilty under Section 304-A of the IPC in an accident case, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that it is trite that the Court identification itself is a good identification in the eyes of law. 

The above-stated observation was made by the Court while considering that the complainant (eye-witness) identified the accused-driver in the Court. 

The Bench of Justice Pankaj Jain held, 

“Merely because the test identification parade was not conducted it does not affect the identification of the petitioner by eye-witness Arjan Singh in Court”.

Thus, finding no fault in the decision of the lower court, the Bench dismissed the present revision petition. 

The complainant alleged in his complaint that his brothers who were on cycles were hit by a speeding truck which was driven in a rash and negligent manner. Based on this complaint, an FIR was registered. The petitioner faced trial and was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC and was sentenced accordingly. 

Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition was filed. During the pendency of the revision petition, the petitioner’s sentence was suspended. He already underwent an actual custody of one month and seven days. 

It was the submission of the petitioner’s counsel that the identity of the petitioner was not established on record and that he was not the owner of the offending vehicle. The actual owner was not associated with the investigation, the Counsel added. It was also the Counsel’s case that the statements of the complainant (alleged eye-witness) regarding the establishment of the petitioner’s identity were contradictory and therefore, could not be believed. 

It was also the counsel’s case that apart from alleging the petitioner was negligent, nothing was attributed to him. It was also argued that the bald and vague allegations of negligence were not sufficient enough to convict the petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC. 

On the contrary, the State Counsel argued that court identification itself is a good identification in the eyes of law and it is not always necessary that the same be preceded by a test identification parade. 

After hearing the parties, the Court observed that it was a case of eye-witness account where the witness gave details of the accident which led to the death of the eye-witness’s brothers. 

Regarding the argument of the petitioner’s counsel on the allegation of negligence, the Court observed that as per settled law, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a recognized principle which is applicable to the cases of accidents. Coming to the present case, the Court observed that the truck driven by the petitioner struck the cycles of the deceased from behind, thus it was a situation where doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can safely be invoked and the burden shifts onto the person who was in control of the offending vehicle to establish that the accident did not happen on account of any negligence on his part. Thus, to contend that the negligence was not proved is fallacious, the Court opined while adding that, “negligence and rashness on the part of the offending vehicle is written large on the record.”

Coming on to the second limb of the argument of the petitioner’s counsel with respect to the identity of the accused, the Court opined that the complainant-eye witness identified the petitioner in the Court. “Trite it is that the Court identification itself is a good identification in the eyes of law”, the Court held. 

“... testimony of PWI Arjan Singh is found to be trustworthy. He has withstood lengthy cross-examination. Merely because the test identification parade was not conducted it does not affect the identification of the petitioner by eye-witness Arjan Singh in Court”, the Court held. 

Thus, finding no fault in the decision of the lower court, the Bench dismissed the present revision petition.