Identification in court serves as primary evidence, with errors in pre-trial identifications not automatically rendering testimonies invalid if verifiable by corroborating evidence.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

1. These appeals have been directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.10 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai, dated 12.07.2022, thereby convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 394 r/w 397 of I.P.C.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.05.2020 at about 03.00 p.m., the victim went to work at a private company and returned to her house in the company vehicle at about 11.20 p.m. She was dropped at the main road and while she was walking along the mud road from E.Mettupatti bus stop to her house, the accused arrived on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-48-S-6522. At knife point, they robbed her of a pair of ear studs weighing 1 gram and 900 mg, a nose stud weighing 130 mg and a Redmi cellphone. They also threatened to kill her by showing a sword. Based on her complaint, the respondent registered an F.I.R in Crime No.311 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 394 and 397 of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, a final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the trial Court.

3. In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 and marked Ex.P1 to P23. The prosecution also produced Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.6. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and Ex.D.1 was marked.

4. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found A.1 and A.3 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 394 r/w 397 of I.P.C and A.2 guilty for the offence punishable under of. A.1 was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/-, in default, to undergo five years Simple Imprisonment for the offence punishable under r/w 397 of ; A.2 was sentenced to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/-, in default, to undergo three years Simple Imprisonment for the offence punishable under of and A.3 was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/-, in default, to undergo five years Simple Imprisonment for the offence punishable under r/w 397 of. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals have been preferred by the appellants.

5. The learned counsels appearing for the respective appellants submitted that after the occurrence, the victim went to a private hospital and made a statement that she was raped and robbed by four unknown persons. However, the respondent did not charge the accused with rape. The prosecutrix identified only three accused persons, which is contrary to the first document ie., the accident register. The prosecutrix identified the accused persons after seeing their photographs on social media and later identified them in the test identification parade on 19.06.2020. Therefore, the identification parade was staged by the prosecution to fix the appellants. The respondent did not take any steps to hide the identity of the accused until the identification parade took place and the pictures were published on social media. Further, the identification parade was conducted only 20 days after the arrest of the accused. Even according to the prosecutrix, she was raped and robbed by four persons, but the prosecution projected the case as a robbery by only three persons. The weight of the jewels also differs between the complaint and the recovery. Therefore, it is a fatal to the case of the prosecution and even then, the Trial Court mechanically convicted the appellants.

6. The alleged occurrence happened on 25.