Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.
Gajendra @ Pappu Sahu S/o Sukhdev Sahu - Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Respondent
CRA No. 1272 of 2018
Decided on : 25.03.2025
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 394 and 34 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 374(2) - Conviction for robbery - Appellant convicted and sentenced to 7 years RI and fine for robbery under threat of a knife - Prosecution failed to prove identification of accused beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of independent witnesses in test identification parade. (Paras 1, 19)
(B) Test Identification Parade - Legal requirements - Test identification parade is corroborative evidence and must be conducted in accordance with law; failure to produce identifying witnesses during trial renders TIP ineffective. (Paras 15, 19)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of robbing a complainant at knife point, taking cash, mobile, and other items. The conviction was based on the complainant's identification of the appellant during a test identification parade, which was later challenged. (Paras 2, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution did not prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, particularly due to the failure to examine independent witnesses who conducted the TIP. (Paras 19)
Issues: The main issue was whether the test identification parade was conducted legally and its effect on the prosecution's case. (Paras 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution's failure to produce witnesses from the TIP undermined its evidentiary value, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. (Paras 19)
Result: Appeal allowed; the appellant acquitted.
JUDGMENT :
(Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.)
1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of CrPC has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.06.2018 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 52 of 2018 by which appellant Gajendra @ Pappu Sahu has been convicted under Sections 394 read with 34of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 6 months.
2. Prosecution case in brief is that the complainant has lodged the complaint before Police Station Khamtari on 05.03.2017 at about 3.00 PM alleging that after dropping her sister at Urkura Railway station, he returned towards his bike Honda Shine where it was parked there two unknown persons already standing there asked him about the road in which one person came to him, threatened him on the knife point and looted his mobile, key of his motorcycle, three ATM cards, cash of Rs. 350-300 and one account payee cheque of Rs. 8,000/- thereafter fled away from there. On the basis of report, FIR (Ex.P-8) offence under Section 392 of the IPC was registered against unknown person. The police started investigation; prepared map and recorded memorandum statement of co-accused and on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused other articles were recovered from the accused.
3. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur who in turn committed the case to the Court of Additional Session Judge, Raipur which was registered as Sessions Case No. 52 of 2018.
4. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellant examined as many as 9 witnesses, Kanhaiya Lal Thakur (PW-1), Smt. Malti Jaiswal (PW-2), Ajay Dewangan (PW-3), Ramesh Kumar Sinha (PW-4), Yogendra Verma (PW-5), Prem Lal Sinha (PW-6), Inspector Yogita Khaparde (PW-7) and exhibited documents letter dated 05.05.2017(Ex.P-1), Map (Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-10), memorandum statement of Rakesh Devdas (Ex.P-3), Seizure memo (Ex.P-4), Seizure memo (Ex.P-5), arrested memo of Gajendra Sahu (Ex.P-6), arrest memo of Rakesh Devdas Manikpuri (Ex.P-7), FIR (Ex.P-8), map of the spot (Ex.P-9), test identification parade (Ex.P-11), arrest information of accused Devdas Manikpuri (Ex.P-12), arrest information of accused Gajendra (Ex.P-13), letter dated 05.05.2017 seeking certificate under Section 65(B)of the Evidence Act (Ex.P-14), Identification parade of accused (Ex.P-15) and Note sheet regarding seeking call details (Ex.P-16). The appellant did not examine any witness in his support.
5. Malti Jaiswal (Ex.P-2) deposed in her cross-examination before the Court that she was not present at the time of incident and whatever she said before the Court regarding incident that was told by her brother.
6. Complainant (PW-4) was examined before the court wherein he has stated that on the date of incident he parked his Honda Shine bike at 200 meters away from the Railway Station and went to platform with his sister to drop her. After returning he sawthat two unknown persons were already standing there and one of them came to him and asked about the road and on the knife point they looted his purse, Samsung mobile and bike. Thereafter, he informed the incident to his younger brother through his sister’s mobile. Thereafter, the incident of loot was registerd at police Station Khamtarai by his brother under Ex.P-8. This witness further stated that before the incident, he did not know the accused and for the first time, he saw the accused in the Court and during identification parade. He has also stated that the accused snatched key of motorcycle and mobile and he identified the accused in test identification parade. He further stated that he did not park his bike at the parking stand and he did not inform the Police about the loot done on the knife point.
7. Tahsildar Yogendra Verma (PW-5) was examined before the Co
The evidentiary value of a test identification parade is not substantive and requires corroboration; failure to produce identifying witnesses renders it ineffective.
The absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) undermines the reliability of dock identification, making it insufficient for conviction in acquittal appeals.
The validity of the test identification parade and the requirement for the prosecution to establish that the TIP was held in accordance with the law.
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 ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
