IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, JJ.
Girdharilal, S/o. Motilal and ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Chandrapur – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 959, 996, 1617 of 2017
Decided On : 19-02-2024
TIP - Identification of Accused - Ex.P-3, Ex.P-7 & Ex.P-9 - The TIP conducted by the prosecution was not in accordance with law, and the identity of the appellants as authors of the crime was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The recovery from the accused was of no use in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu and Balwan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh. Therefore, all the accused persons were entitled to acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the appellants being convicted for the offence under Sections 302/149 & 323/149 of Indian Penal Code for assaulting and causing the death of a person. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of witnesses who did not know the appellants prior to the date of the offence, and the recovery of weapons from the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the TIP conducted by the prosecution was not in accordance with the law, and the identity of the appellants as authors of the crime was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The recovery from the accused was of no use to the prosecution. Therefore, all the accused persons were entitled to acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the validity of the TIP conducted by the prosecution and the evidentiary value of the recovery from the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the TIP conducted by the prosecution was not in accordance with the law, and the recovery from the accused was of no use to the prosecution. Therefore, the appellants were entitled to acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.05.2017 was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charges under Section 302/149 & 323/149 of I.P.C.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. The appellants herein, Girdharilal (A-2) & Bablu @ Raja (A-4) have jointly preferred Criminal Appeal No.959/2017, Vinod (A-3) has preferred Criminal Appeal No.996/2017 and Arkhito (A-5) & Rohit Manjhi (A-6) have preferred Criminal Appeal No.1617/2017 under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.05.2017 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir- Champa, in Sessions Trial No.138/2012, by which they have been convicted for the offence under Sections 302/149 & 323/149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently :-
| CONVICTION | SENTENCE |
| U/s. 302/149 of IPC | Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default of payment of fine, 6 months additional simple imprisonment. |
| U/s. 323/149 of IPC (Four Times) | Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine, 1 month additional simple imprison ment. |
(Criminal Appeal No.1050/2017 filed by Ramkrishna (A-1) has been disposed off as having become abated by order dated 24.07.2021).
2. Since common question of law and facts are involved in these appeals and have been arisen from Sessions Trial No.138/2012, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 02.05.2009, at 4:00 p.m., at Nathaldai Temple, the appellants herein in their coconut shop abused Ishwar (PW-2), Navin (PW-3), Rajkumar (PW-4), Ranjit (PW-6) and Bablu in furtherance of their common object assaulted them by hand & fists and by dangerous weapon, by which, Bablu died and caused simple injury to Ishwar (PW-2), Navin (PW-3), Rajkumar (PW-4) and Ranjit (PW-6) and also damaged the vehicle owned by Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal; thereby, the aforesaid offences have been committed. Further, case of the prosecution is that on 02.05.2009, Dilip Ratre (PW-1) had gone to Chandrahasani Temple at Chandarpur to perform the marriage of his daughter Sunita with Ashok Kumar Satnami and after completion of the marriage, he along-with others came into Mahanadi bridge and was taking coconut from the coconut shop of the appellants, then the dispute arose on account of purchasing coconut, due to which, the appellants assaulted Ishwar (PW-2), Navin (PW-3) Rajkumar (PW-4) and Ranjit (PW-6), by which, they suffered grievous injuries and on the report of complainant Dilip Kumar Ratre (PW-1), offences under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 323 & 427 of I.P.C. were registered against the appellants vide Ex.P-1 and the injured persons were examined vide Ex.P-36, Ex.P-38, Ex.P-40, Ex.P-42 & Ex.P-44 and during course of treatment at Raipur, Bablu died, pursuant to which, merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P-35 at Police Station- Mohadapara, Raipur and dead body of deceased Bablu was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. E.K.Thakur (PW-19), who proved the post-mortem report Ex.P-51, in which, cause of death was stated to be cardio respiratory failure as a result of head injury and its complications and death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of Girdharilal (A-2), wooden log was seized vide Ex.P-22, pursuant to memorandum statement of Vinod (A-3), wooden stick was seized vide Ex.P-21 and on the memorandum statement of Arkhito (A-5), wooden stick was seized vide Ex.P-23, but no FSL report has been brought on record to hold that the seized articles were stained with human blood. Furthermore, the Test Identification Parade (for short “TIP”) was conducted vide Ex.P-3, Ex.P-7 & Ex.P-9 by the Executive Magistrate A.P.S. Parihar (PW-26) in the concerned Tahsil office to identify the accused persons, as Ishwar (PW-2), Navin (PW-3), Rajkumar (PW-4) and Ranjit (PW-6) did not know the appellants herein prior to date of offence, in
Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain
Ashwani Kumar v. State of Punjab
Balwan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh
Budhsen & Anr. v. State of U.P.
Gireesan Nair & Others v. State of Kerala
Heera & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Mukesh and Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P.
Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh
The TIP conducted by the prosecution must be in accordance with the law, and the recovery of evidence must be of substantial value to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the unreliability of witness identification and the importance of a fair and proper Test Identification Parade (TIP) in corroborating witness testi....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable eyewitness identification, the admissibility of recovery evidence, and the obligation to disclose crucial reports in ....
(1) Test Identification Parade (TIP) – TIPs, even if held, cannot be considered in all cases as trustworthy evidence on which conviction of accused can be sustained.(2) TIP conducted in presence of a....
Murder and disappearance of evidence – Reliance cannot be placed on such a TIP which is full of lacuna.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.