Conviction based solely on first-time identification in court, without a Test Identification Parade (TIP), is unsustainable when the accused's face was muffled during the incident and there is no corroborative evidence.

J UDGMENT

Dated: 07th May, 2026

1. Heard Mr. Nawin Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Learned Spl.P.P. for the State.

2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 15.09.2007 and order of sentence dated 20.09.2007 passed in S.T. No. 357 of 2003 and S.T. No. 42 of 2005 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C No.-III), Hazaribagh, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been found guilty for the offence under Section 395 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years, however, the other accused persons have been acquitted from the charges.

Factual Matrix

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 04.03.2003, at about 5:00 pm, the informant had gone to Hazaribagh, for treatment of his daughter, along with his wife, on his own vehicle and his driver also came with him, on a motor-cycle. After treatment, the informant returned to his house, on his own vehicle and followed by his driver, by a motor-cycle. At about 8:30 PM, when they reached to their house, thereafter, the informant came out of his house to see off his driver. In the meantime, two miscreants caught hold of them, on the point of pistol, entered into the house and thereafter, 4-5 miscreants also entered into the house and took out gold ear tops, gold ring, silver payals and nose-pins of his mother and wife along with Rs. 700/- cash. After dacoity in the house of the informant, they locked the driver in a room and informant was also taken to the house of his uncle Brahmdeo Pandey and directed to call his uncle, then, informant’s aunt opened the door, thereafter, all the miscreants entered into the house of informant’s uncle house and looted away ornaments and cash and fled away extending threats of dire consequences to the informant. Due to threat of dire consequences by the miscreants, the informant did not raise any alarm and in the morning, the informant came to know that the miscreants also looted the property in the house of Sheo Nandan Sharma, Umesh Sharma, Vijay Pandey, Gurudayal Sao and Kedar Nath Sharma. The miscreants were talking in local language and in the light of torch and lamp, the informant has claimed to identified all the miscreants.

4. On the basis of fardbeyan recorded by S.I., Sri Venkatesh Kumar, Officer-in-charge, Pelawal, Katkamsandi P.S. Case No. 28 of 2003 for the offence under Section 395 of the IPC was registered. After completion of investigation, first charge-sheet was submitted against three accused persons. Subsequently, another chargesheet was submitted against this appellant and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where Sessions Case No.42 of 2005 was registered and other three co-accused persons’ trial were separated in S.T. No. 357 of 2003. The appellant has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be innocent and false implication.

5. It appears that altogether four witnesses have been examined by the prosecution: -

P.W.-1 Sudhir Kumar Pandey (Informant)

P.W.-2 Sabitri Devi (Aunt of the Informant)

P.W.-3 Jib Lal Sao

P.W.-4 Radhey Shyam Pandey

6. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.

Submissions on behalf of the appellant

7. Learned counsel for the appellantsubmits that the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 395 of the IPC and other accused persons facing trial with him have been acquitted, extending the benefit of doubt, due to non-identification in the concerned trial Court. It is further submitted that the appellant has been held guilty, on the basis of evidence of P.W