Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv., Mr. Bhagwant Singh, Adv., Mr. Mansimran Singh, Adv., Ms. Vishakha Ahuja, Adv., Mr. Praveen Gaur, Adv., Mr. Karan Mamgain, Adv., Mr. Kashish Aneja, Adv., Ms. Shaiyra Khanna, Adv., Mr. Prithvi Pal, AOR, Mr. Deepanshu Matya, Adv., Ms. Tusharika Sharma, Adv., Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR.
For the Respondent: Dr. Rajiv Nanda, AOR.

Question 1? Question 2? Question 3?

Key Points: - The validity of test identification parade (TIP) must be proven to have been held in accordance with law; TIP is not substantive evidence but corroborative (!) (!) . - Prosecution failed to establish that the TIP was conducted properly; Magistrate conducted TIP but not examined, and no explanation for absence of examination; TIP details and proceedings not properly proven (!) . - Repeated TIPs and identification by a minor (PW-2, about 13 years old) undermine reliability; TIP held in a manner that is non est in law; acquittals under Section 412 IPC and Arms Act affirmed due to invalid TIP (!) (!) (!) . - Original seizure memo not produced; casual police investigation and lack of corroborating substantive evidence led to acquittals; TIP cannot sole basis for conviction (!) (!) . - Court held that TIP is not substantive evidence and upheld that the appellants be released; appeals allowed (!) . - The case notes that identification by PW-2 in later rounds does not salvage integrity of TIP; reliance on TIP with minor identification is unreliable (!) (!) . - There is a finding of "non est in the law" TIP and condemnation of the police investigation’s casual nature (!) (!) . - The decision references similar concern as in Iqbal and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 623 (!) . - Final outcome: appeals allowed; appellants released forthwith unless needed in other cases (!) . - The FIR was registered against unknown persons; primary witnesses were PW-1 (mother) and PW-2 (son) (!) .

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?