Conviction under Section 394 IPC must be supported by reliable identification evidence; lack thereof in this case rendered the conviction unsafe.

JUDGMENT :

V.Narasingh, J.

Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

1. This Criminal Revision has been filed assailing the Judgment dated 29.09.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Balangir in Criminal Appeal No.97/18 of 1999-2000, affirming the order of conviction qua the Petitioner dated 15.12.1999 passed by the learned Asst. Sessions Judge-cum-C.J.M, Bolangir in Sessions Case No.54/11 of 1997 under section 394 IPC and imposing a sentence of R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-( Rupees One Thousand Only). In default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. It is apt to note here that the present Petitioner (Appellant) along with two others namely, Sundar Nanda and Hari Karti faced trial and the learned Trial Court acquitted Hari Karti and the present Petitioner (Appellant) along with Sundar Nanda were convicted under Section 394 of IPC , as noted herein above.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 02.10.1996 at about 10:50 a.m., while the informant was proceeding from Balangir to Titilagarh on his Hero Honda Splendor Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. OR-03-6031, three culprits being armed rushed towards him near the forest of village Raipali. When the informant attempted to turn back, his motorcycle slipped. Taking advantage of the situation, the culprits assaulted him, causing injuries, and snatched a gold chain from his person. They also forced him to hand over the key of the motorcycle, opened the dicky and took away Rs.15,000/- kept therein, and fled towards the forest. Immediately thereafter, the informant stopped a passing vehicle, went to Deogaon Out Post, and lodged a written report regarding the occurrence. Upon completion of investigation, submitted charge- sheet against the accused Petitioner under Sections 394 /397 IPC .

4 The case of the defense was one of complete denial and false implication.

5. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined seven witnesses. P.W.1-the informant, and P.Ws.2 and 3 are the material witnesses on whose evidence reliance has been placed by the learned Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. Several documents were adduced on behalf of the prosecution and marked as Exts.1 to 9/1 and two material objects (M.Os.) were also exhibited.

Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defense.

6. Considering the evidence and materials on record primarily on the evidence of P.W.1–informant and P.Ws.2 and 3, the learned Trial Court convicted the Petitioner for commission of offence under Section 394 IPC and directed to undergo R.I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

On appeal being preferred, the learned Appellate Court found no infirmity in the findings of the Trial Court and accordingly affirmed both the conviction and the sentence imposed. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed.

7. A distinct feature in the case which merits notice is that, on the prayer of the I.O. (P.W.7), a Test Identification (TI) Parade was conducted. However, the TI Parade report has not been proved in the case, and the learned SDJM, Balangir, who conducted the TI Parade, has neither been examined by the prosecution nor cited as a witness in the charge-sheet.

8. Admittedly, the FIR was lodged against unknown persons. The learned Trial Court referred to the evidence of P.W.1, who stated that he had often seen the present accused along with the co-accused, Sundar Nanda, moving around near the