Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Ramesh Sinha, CJ. and Bibhu Datta Guru , J.
Mohd. Yasin and Ors. – Appellants
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through the Station House Officer – Respondent
CRA No.1054 of 2022
Decided on 20.8.2024

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant Nos.1, 2 and 4:Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate
For the Appellant No.3:Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate
For the Respondent-State:Mr. R.S. Marhas, Addl. Advocate General

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Murder – Mere recovery of weapon from appellants cannot become basis of conviction when there is no established motive for commission of offence.
(2) Test identification – Identification in Court (dock identification) is a substantive piece of evidence and admissible in evidence – Test identification attaches only corroborative value, it is not sine qua non in every case.

Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 and 341 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 103(1)/3(5) and 126(2) – Arms Act, 1959 – Sections 25(1-1A) and 27 – Murder and wrongful restraint – Common intention – Life imprisonment – Mere recovery of weapon from appellants cannot become basis of conviction when there is no established motive for commission of offence – In criminal cases, guilt should be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that a reasonable man with ordinary prudence can have – There should be no doubt whether accused is guilty or not – If there is slightest doubt, no matter how small it is, benefit will go accused – However strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Prosecution had utterly failed to prove incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt – Evidence of sole witness needs to be considered with caution and after testing it against other material – Such evidence must inspire confidence and ought to be beyond suspicion – Appellants acquitted from all charges.(Paras 37, 38 and 40)
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 9 [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 7] – Test identification – Identification in Court (dock identification) is a substantive piece of evidence and admissible in evidence – Test identification attaches only corroborative value, it is not sine qua non in every case – Test identification is a rule of prudence and caution for accusation – If dock identification is otherwise reliable, then reliance can be placed upon the same – If accused were not known to prosecution witnesses and prosecution case is based only on identification of accused (T.I.P.) or on identification produced before Court, prosecution must prove that accused were not known to prosecution witnesses prior to occurrence and they had sufficient opportunity to see special characteristics as well as identification marks on person of accused, committing crime including identification marks on their faces – TIP is very weak evidence, it has only corroboratory value.(Paras 30 and 31)
Result: Criminal Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT ON BOARD

Ramesh Sinha, CJ.—The appellants have preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.03.2022 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 211/2017, whereby the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently in the following manner:

For Appellant No.1 Mohd. Yasin :

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 341 of IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for 01 month and fine of Rs. 500/- and in defaults of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 07 days
U/s 302 of IPC	Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/ and in default of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 03 months
U/s 27 of the Arms Act	Rigorous imprisonment for 07 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in defaults of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 03 months

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 341 of IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for 01 month and fine of Rs. 500/- and in defaults of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 07 days
U/s 302 of IPC	Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/ and in default of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 03 months
U/s 27 of the Arms Act	Rigorous imprisonment for 07 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in defaults of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 03 months

For Appellant No.2 Shekh Gufran Ahmad:

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 341 of IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for 01 month and fine of Rs. 500/- and in defaults payment of fine amount, additional of RI for 07 days
U/s 302/34 of IPC	Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 03 months

For Appellant No.3 Mohd. Aasif Ahmad:

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 341 of IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for 01 month and fine of Rs. 500/- and in defaults of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 07 days
U/s 302/34 of IPC	Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 03 months
U/s 25(1-1A) of the Arms Act	Rigorous imprisonment for 05 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in defaults of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 03 months

For Appellant No.4 Shekh Samir Ahmad:

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 341 of IPC	Rigorous imprisonment for 01 month and fine of Rs. 500/- and in defaults of payment of fine amount,
additional RI for 7 days U/s 302/34 of IPC	Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 03 months

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Rajeev Bhosale (PW-1) does property dealing business, who has business relations with Bablu alias Irfan. On 15.06.2017, at around 9.30 pm, complainant Rajeev Bhosale met with Bablu alias Irfan at Pachpedhi Naka, Raipur, thereafter he came to his home with Bablu and from there at around 10.00 pm, he took Bablu alias Irfan along with his son Chaitanya Bhosle, aged 03 years to his father’s house in Sejbahar in Innova car bearing registration No. MP 28-BD-4488 to wish his sister a happy birthday, from where after wishing her happy birthday and having food, while returning to his home with Bablu alias Irfan and his son, he was sitting in driving seat of his Innova car and Bablu alias Irfan was sitting on the seat next to him with his son Chaitanya in his lap. After that, as soon as the complainant started moving his car, two people came from the front in a Pulsar bike and parked the said motor-cycle in front of his car and they stopped the car by giving a signal. At the same time, from behind two other persons came in other motor-cycle and stood on the side seat of the car, out of which, seeing the boy sitting behind in the motor cycle, Bablu alias Irfan said, H