Identification of accused enough if encounter not brief, rules court

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, January 21

A Kaithal court has held that identification of an accused by the complainant in the witness box itself is sufficient when the encounter between them is not momentary like two parallel trains crossing each other.

The ruling by Kaithal District and Sessions Judge MM Dhonchak in a snatching case assumes significance as more often than not, the issue of identification of an accused in such cases is of utmost importance, with defence attempting to take advantage of limited contact between them during commission of an offence.

Judge Dhonchak has made it clear in his judgment, delivered after concluding the trial in a short span of a week, that identification of the accused in the court is enough to establish his identity when the accused and complainant have had more than fleeting interaction.

The judgment came in a snatching case where the complainant was sandwiched between two accused after he took hold of his motorcycle and rode away.

The public prosecutor admitted the absence of identification memo in the case, but he argued that identification of the accused was not in doubt as he and the complainant had more than a mere momentary interaction.

“There is a considerable substance in the argument advanced by the public prosecutor as after all, it was not a momentary encounter between the complainant and the offenders or accused like two parallel trains crossing each other and they had sufficient time to know each other.

“In such circumstances, the identification of the accused by the complainant in the witness box itself is sufficient to take this court to the formidable conclusion that the question of identification is no more in doubt,” Judge Dhonchak asserted.

Holding accused Sunil guilty of commission of offence under Section 379-A (2) of the IPC, Judge Dhonchak ordered him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay a fine of Rs 25,000. The complainant was granted liberty to approach Kaithal District Legal Services Authority for compensation.

The case has its genesis in a complaint lodged by Pundri resident Pradeep in September 2016. Among other things, he alleged that accused Sunil, along with co-accused Sinder, later declared proclaimed offender, forcibly snatched 10,000 from him.

He alleged that the accused, given lift by him on motorcycle, made him sit between them. One of them started driving the motorcycle while the other sat behind him. After he raised the alarm, the accused left his motorcycle before fleeing with ATM card, bike keys, mobile phone and Rs 10,000.