The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for fairness and compliance with legal provisions in conducting Test Identification Parades, and the importance of reliability in identification evidence.

Mutum B.K. Singh, J.

1. The judgment dated 26-6-2000 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar in S.T. 47(NT/D)/1999 convicting the appellant under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo 8 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years, is under challenge in this appeal.

2. Heard Mr. A. K. Deb, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Special P. P. for the State-respondent.

3. The prosecution story, in short, is that on 3-9-1990 at about 12.00 hours, one Sri Pratap Ranjan Dey, Kanangohu Cashier of the office of the Executive Engineer, PWD, Kanchanpur, Tripura North, lodged a written ejahar to the Officer-in-charge, Kanchanpur police station stating that on the same day i.e. 3-9-1990 at about 11.15 hours, he was returning by the Office vehicle after drawing a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the Tripura Gramin Bank, Kanchanpur Branch, when the vehicle reached at Dasda-Kanchanpur Road, some miscreants numbering about 7/8 armed with guns attacked the vehicle in which he sustained bullet injuries and the miscreants looted the money from him and fled away. According to the informant, the miscreants appear to be belonging to Chakma Tribal community. On the basis of the said report, a case being Kanchanpur P.S. Case No. 1(9)90 under Section 395/397, Indian Penal Code and Section 27, Arms Act was registered. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet dated 22-1-1992 against 10 (ten) persons and out of them 5 accused persons were sent up for trial and remaining 5 persons were shown as absconders. Subsequently, only 4 accused persons, namely, Pradip Chakma, Suraj Bijoy Chakma, Amalendu Chakma and Niranjan Reang faced the trial. Out of the said 4 accused persons, the learned trial Court acquitted 3 accused persons during the course of hearing under Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, the trial was proceeded with only against the present appellant and convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. That, during the course of trail 17 witnesses were produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution and the case of the appellant was the total denial of the charge levelled against him.

5. That, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant attacked the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that the conviction was based solely on the basis of the test identification parade which according to the learned Counsel, was not conducted in accordance with law and as such the impugned judgment is not sustainable and liable to be quashed. The second point of argument advanced by the learned Counsel is that the conviction of the appellant under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code is also not sustainable on the ground that out of the 5 accused persons against whom the trial was held, 4 accused persons were already acquitted. Thus, the impugned judgment is wholly untenable, the learned trial Court ought to have honourably acquitted the appellant.

6. That, out of the 17 prosecution witnesses, P.W. Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 10 claim to have seen the alleged occurrence. None of the said witness, however, could identity/ recognize any of the miscreants. P.W. No. 10 stated that about 8/9 years back one day at about 10/11 a.m. he heard firing sound and also found 10/12 persons fleeing away and he recognized 2 persons namely, Dhananjoy Reang and Kalinjoy Reang as they belong to his village. This witness did not mention the name of the appellant at any point of time. P.W. No. 3, the informant identified the appellant only in the Test Identification Parade which was conducted on 30-1-1991 inside the Dharmanagar Sub Jail. P.W. No. 3, however, stated that the miscreants were 7/8 in numbers. P.W. No. 4 did not mention the number of miscreants, he simply deposed that on 3-9-1990 the Cashier (P.W. No. 3) was return