The appeal challenges a High Court decision upholding his conviction for dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act. The document outlines the prosecution’s case, which stems from a 1993 bus robbery, and then presents the appellant’s arguments disputing the reliability of the evidence, including issues with identification and the circumstances of his arrest. Finally, it provides the court’s analysis and judgment, ultimately finding the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitting the appellant.
(A) Penal Code, 1860, Section 395 read with Section 397 – Arms Act, 1959, Section 25(1) (b) (a) – Appeal against conviction – Evidence Act, 1872, Section 9 – Test Identification parade – Dock identification – Though it was proved by PW-7 (i.e., the Naib Tehsildar who executed the TIP) that the TIP for identifying the appellant was conducted and the appellant was identified by two out of three witnesses yet those three witnesses who participated in the TIP of the appellant were not examined during trial – Thus, the TIP report, which could have been used to either contradict or corroborate those witnesses, is of no evidentiary value – Only substantive evidence on record of the case in respect of identification of the appellant is the dock identification by PW-9 – Held that the dock identification by PW-9 does not inspire our confidence for the reasons: (a) PW-9 is a police personnel posted at police station Prem Nagar. During cross-examination, on being questioned about his movement papers, he could not provide a satisfactory explanation for his movement in that bus – (b) As per the investigating officer, PW-9’s statement was recorded on the same day the FIR was registered. The appellant was also arrested that very night within few hours of the incident. Yet, PW-9 was not used for identifying the accused during the TIP. His non-participation in the TIP, seriously dents his credibility – (c) PW-9 in his deposition stated that he had seen the appellant earlier on more than one occasion – If that was so, there was all the more reason for the investigating officer to use him in the TIP – More so, when, as a police personnel, he was under the control of the prosecution – Besides that, when you withhold the best evidence such as that of the driver, conductor and cleaner of the Bus, who all participated in the TIP, without giving good reason as to why they were not produced or summoned, the dock identification by a solitary witness, that too a police personnel, fails to inspire confidence to sustain conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the IPC, particularly, in absence of corroborative evidence of recovery of any looted article either from, or at the instance of, the appellant – Held that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt – The appellant is therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt – Judgment and order of the trial court and the High Court liable to be set-aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge for which he was tried.
(Para 15 to 17 and 25)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872, Section 9 – Evidence – Test Identification parade – Objective – Evidential value – Held that a test identification parade under Section 9 of the Act, 1872 is not substantive evidence in a criminal prosecution but is only corroborative evidence – The purpose of holding a test identification parade during the stage of investigation is, firstly, to ensure that the investigating agency is proceeding in the right direction where the accused is unknown and, secondly, to serve as a corroborative piece of evidence when the witness identifies the accused during trial – The evidence of identification merely corroborates and strengthens the oral testimony in court which alone is the primary and substantive evidence as to identity.
(Para 14)
Vinod @ Nasmulla V. State Of Chhattisgarh
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 220: (DoJ 14-02-2025)
