Dock identification of a stranger in court, in the absence of a prior Test Identification Parade, constitutes weak evidence. Unless supported by robust, independent, and verifiable corroboration, such identification is insufficient to sustain a criminal conviction.

JUDGMENT :

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

1. Heard Rajesh Lala, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P. for the State assisted by Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel appearing for the informant.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23.09.2015 (sentence passed on 28.09.2015) passed by Sri Arun Kumar Gupta-II, learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 218/2012, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 363/34, 364/34 and 364(A)/34 of the IPC and have been sentenced to R.I. for 07 years along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- each for the offence u/s 363 of the IPC and in default in payment of fine to undergo R.I. for 03 months, R.I. for 10 years along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- each for the offence u/s 364 of the IPC and in default in payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for 03 months and R.I. for life along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence u/s 364(A) of the IPC and in case of default in payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for 06 months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case arises out of a written report of Pradeep Kumar dated 12.09.2011, in which, it has been stated that the son of the informant namely, Ujjwal Kumar aged 08 years is a student of Class-I in Gyanoday Public School. On 12.09.2011, the son of the informant as was the routine had gone to the school in the school vehicle and after school hours, he got down from the Bus along with other children near Durga Mandir. The house of the informant is at a distance of 500 meters from G.T. Road. The son of the informant was returning home along with the daughter and nephew of the informant as well as other children when all of a sudden two persons came on a motorcycle and called out the name of the son of the informant and abducted him. The children who were present had seen the incident and they had informed about the same to the family members of the informant who in turn informed the informant. After about half an hour a call came on his mobile no. 9431980431 from mobile no. 8591494486 and after verifying his identity the caller had given the phone to the abducted child after which an amount of forty was demanded as ransom. The call was thereafter disconnected. The informant became perturbed and disturbed and in the meantime a call came from Dondlo village that a child has been recovered by the villagers. The informant and his family members reached the place of occurrence and found that the recovered child is Ujjwal Kumar. At the place of occurrence, he saw a pit and the villagers had disclosed that the child was recovered from the pit. The child claims that he can identify all the miscreants and one of the miscreants used to frequent the house of his neighbour Ankit whose name is Pankaj @ Titu.

Based on the aforesaid allegations Bagodar P.S. Case No. 187/2011 was instituted u/s 364, 364(A)/34 of the IPC. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 218/2012. Charge was framed against the accused u/s 363/34, 364/34 and 364(A)/34 of the IPC which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to whi