Custodial death evidence requires cautious identification review; conviction may rest on corroborated circumstances, while unproved co-accused are acquitted.

In custodial death cases, a test identification parade is not substantive evidence, but where a witness is a stranger and prior identification is absent, corroboration is ordinarily expected as a rule of prudence. On the facts discussed, the conviction of one accused was sustained because the prosecution evidence was supported by medical material, the surrounding circumstances, and the falsity of the defence, establishing culpability for death caused by injuries and the combined effect of alcohol and trauma. The remaining accused were entitled to acquittal because the eyewitness versions were contradictory, their identification was unreliable, and individual guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction of one accused for custodial death could be sustained on the evidence adduced, notwithstanding absence of a test identification parade and inconsistencies in the testimony of eyewitnesses; (ii) whether the remaining accused were entitled to acquittal for want of reliable proof.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction of one accused for custodial death could be sustained on the evidence adduced, notwithstanding absence of a test identification parade and inconsistencies in the testimony of eyewitnesses.

Analysis: In a case of custodial violence, direct evidence is often scarce, and identification evidence is assessed on the facts of each case. A test identification parade is not substantive evidence, but where the identifying witness is a stranger and there is no prior identification, corroboration is ordinarily expected as a rule of prudence. Here, the evidence against one accused was supported by a false version taken by the defence, the medical evidence, and the surrounding circumstances showing that the deceased was in police custody and died after assault. The Court held that the prosecution case was proved against that accused to the extent of culpability for causing death by the injuries and the combined effect of alcohol and trauma.

Conclusion: The conviction of the concerned accused was sustained under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Issue (ii): Whether the remaining accused were entitled to acquittal for want of reliable proof.

Analysis: The remaining accused were sought to be implicated largely through the testimony of witnesses whose versions suffered from unexplained contradictions and whose identification of the accused was not safely reliable. In the absence of dependable corroboration, and without sufficient material to fasten individual guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution case against them was not established.

Conclusion: The remaining accused were entitled to acquittal.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part, with the conviction maintained against one accused and set aside in favour of the others.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases of custodial death, identification evidence without a test identification parade is not inherently inadmissible, but it must be weighed with greater caution; conviction can rest on a combination of credible circumstances, medical evidence, and the falsity of the defence, while each accused must still be proved guilty individually beyond reasonable doubt.

---