Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 14598
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Farjand Ali, J
Shushu @ Sushil S/o Karmveer – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 28/2018 | S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 806/2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. RS Gill, Mr. Vikas Bijarnia, Ms. Ranjana Mertia
For the Respondents: Mr. Shrawan Singh Rathore, Dy.G.A.
The court emphasized that flawed identification and lack of substantial evidence are critical weaknesses that invalidate criminal convictions.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 395 and 397 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 3/25 - Conviction for robbery and arms possession - Conviction overturned due to lack of identification and inadequate evidence connecting the accused to the crime. The court found serious doubts regarding the identification of the accused due to veiled faces at the time of the incident and inconsistencies in witness testimonies. (Paras 5, 6, 6.1)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - The court noted that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were the individuals who committed the robbery, raising concerns on the integrity of the identifications made. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
The appeals arise from convictions for attempted robbery involving multiple individuals, where the prosecution's identification of the accused faced serious credibility issues due to dark conditions at the time of the incident and delayed identification procedures.
Findings of Court:
The appeals are allowed; the conviction and sentence are reversed, emphasizing the shortcomings in evidence provided by the prosecution which failed to establish guilt.
Issues: Whether the identification process was reliable enough to sustain convictions, and whether the prosecution could prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that flawed identification processes and insufficient evidence to connect accused with the recovery items were fatal to the prosecution's case, hence the acquittal. The precedent that failed identification cannot substantiate a conviction was applied.
Result: Appeals allowed; accused acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of appeals and case background. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. challenges to the prosecution's witness identifications and reliability. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's reasoning on insufficient evidence leading to acquittal. (Para 6) |
| 4. final verdict and implications for the accused. (Para 7) |
Order
Order pronounced on : 18 . 08.2025 Order Reserved on : 23. 0 7 .2025
1. These two appeals have been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District – Churu, against the accused persons.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case would be that on 24.01.2006 at about 04:15 A.M., the complainant Bhanwar Lal (P.W.-4) submitted a report Ex.-P/12 alleging, inter alia, an incident, in which, an assault was made by some accused persons and the bus was hijacked, whereafter the offence of loot was committed.
3.1 The investigation commenced, the accused were arrested, identification of the property and accused was conducted and after usual investigation, the appellant - Shushu @ Sushil was charge- sheeted for committing offence under Section s 395 and 397 of IPC and the appellants - Ramesh, Ravi, Anil and Ramawtar were charge-sheeted for committing offences under Section s 395 , 397 of IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act. The Court took cognizance of the offences and framed charges as mentioned above and then commenced the trial. A total of 35 witnesses were produced by the defence and reliance was placed upon 93 documents. The accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and two documents were tendered into evidence in defence.
4. The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants were that though the offence may have been committed by someone but the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the appellants were the person who committed the robbery, has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, for the reason that neither they were named in the FIR nor during trial, could they identify them as assailants.
5. To deal with the issue raised above, this Court has minutely gone through the statements of the prosecution witnesses. It is observed that except P.W.-2 (Kishore Kumar) and P.W.-3 (Gopal Swami), the accused were not put to identification before any person. Almost all prosecution witnesses have, in an unambiguous and unequivocal term, stated that the faces of the accused were veiled. If the faces of the accused were veiled, then how it would be possible to identify or recognize their faces, is a question not blatantly discussed by the learned trial Court.
5.1 The claim of the witnesses of identifying the appellants as accused seems to be flimsy and unconvincing in view of their contradictory statements about the veiled faces of the assailants; the fact that the accused were not already known to the witnesses; the fact that the incident took place in pitch dark and the fact that the identification parade got conducted after two and a half months of the incident, as well as the fact that soon after apprehension, the accused were not kept veiled during investigation till their identification, put serious dent on the case of the prosecution.
5.2 The submission of keeping the memory alive for two and a half months to recognize the faces of the accused, further casts a serious doubt on the story of the prosecution. The absence of evidence of keeping the accused in a state not to be seen by any other person also weakens the charge.
5.3 The fact that alleged recoveries were made from different places on different dates from residential places, but the independent witnesses were not made to accompany or witness the preparation of memos of recovery, is a further question on the fairness of the investigation and its sanctity.
5.4 No evidence has been adduced to say that the place of recovery was within the exclusive and conscious domain and possessio
