Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYA
Gajendra @ Pappu Sahu S/o Sukhdev Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station – Respondent
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 agai
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 ....
Identification in court serves as primary evidence, with errors in pre-trial identifications not automatically rendering testimonies invalid if verifiable by corroborating evidence.
A conviction under Section 396 IPC requires proof of participation by five or more individuals, which was not established in this case, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
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
