The appellant challenges the High Court of Madras's order upholding his conviction for the brutal murder of a 14-year-old girl, based largely on circumstantial evidence. The primary issue before the Court is the identification of the appellant, which is doubtful due to the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP). The High Court's reliance on the testimony of PW-5, who identified the appellant wearing a monkey cap, is found to be flawed. The Supreme Court emphasizes the importance of TIP in such cases and sets aside the conviction, ordering the appellant's release.

Introduction

The appellant challenges the High Court of Madras's order upholding his conviction under various sections of the IPC, including Section 302 read with Section 34, resulting in a life imprisonment sentence.

Incident Details

A 14-year-old girl was brutally murdered inside her house on the night of 13.11.2014. The prosecution's case is based on circumstantial evidence, with the FIR lodged by the deceased's father, Durairaj (PW-1).

Post Mortem Report

Dr. K. Gokularamanan (PW-14) conducted the postmortem, revealing antemortem injuries on the deceased's neck and determining the cause of death as shock due to these injuries.

Investigation and Arrests

The FIR was registered as Case Crime No. 408/2014. The two accused, including the appellant, were apprehended on 15.11.2014, and recoveries were made based on their pointing out.

Charges and Conviction

Both accused were charged and convicted by the Trial Court under various sections of the IPC. However, only the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court, which was dismissed.

Prosecution's Case and Identification Issues

The prosecution's case includes testimonies from witnesses, including PW-1 and PW-5, who identified the appellant wearing a green-colored monkey cap. The High Court dismissed PW-1's identification but relied on PW-5's testimony, which is found to be flawed.

Importance of Test Identification Parade (TIP)

The Court emphasizes the importance of TIP in cases where the accused is a stranger to the witnesses. The absence of TIP in this case is deemed a fatal flaw in the investigation.

Court's Conclusion

The Supreme Court holds that the identity of the appellant is in doubt due to the lack of TIP and the flawed dock identification. The appeal is allowed, and the appellant's conviction is set aside. The appellant is ordered to be released unless required in another case. The decision is specific to the appellant and does not affect the case against accused no. 1.