Pranav B Prem

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, set aside the conviction of two appellants in a 2012 rape case, citing the long delay in conducting a Test Identification Parade (TIP) and the failure of independent witnesses to corroborate the prosecution's claims. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Devnarayan Mishra, emphasized that such deficiencies rendered the prosecution’s case doubtful.

Case Background
The case originated from allegations that in 2012, the prosecutrix and her brother were accosted by the accused near a temple and forcibly taken to a forested hillock. While her brother was restrained, the prosecutrix was allegedly raped by the accused. Following the incident, an FIR was filed under Sections 376(2)(g) and 506 of the IPC against unidentified persons, leading to the subsequent arrest of the appellants.

Key Findings of the Court
The Court highlighted several critical shortcomings in the prosecution's case:

1. Despite the arrest of the accused in February 2012, the TIP was not conducted promptly. Instead, the prosecutrix identified the accused in court nearly 10 months later, a delay deemed fatal to the prosecution’s case. “Thus, in view of the fact that no TIP was carried out immediately on the arrest of the accused persons and thereafter, after lapse of about 10 months time, prosecutrix identified the accused persons in the Court and that too she was not firm on her identification, and looking to the evidence of PW-7 that he had not seen the incident taking place though he happens to be the author of hand written report Ex.P-4, by Dayaram signed by prosecutrix, it is evident that it is a case of false implication and prosecution failed to prove the case.”, the court held

2. Dayaram, the prosecutrix’s cousin and an independent witness, admitted under cross-examination that he had not witnessed the incident, despite being present at the scene. His written complaint was also found to contain statements influenced by police instructions.

3. The medical examination of the prosecutrix revealed no injuries, further weakening the prosecution’s narrative.

4. The prosecutrix expressed uncertainty while identifying the accused in court, undermining the reliability of her testimony.

Judicial Reasoning
Relying on established precedents, the Court reiterated that delayed identification and lack of corroborative evidence compromise the integrity of a case. Citing cases like Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Sampat Tatyadae Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that a delayed TIP without explanation diminishes evidentiary value. The Bench remarked: “The long delay in holding the Test Identification Parade coupled with other infirmities and inconsistencies renders the prosecution case doubtful.”

The Court also observed that the prosecution failed to provide any compelling reason for the delayed TIP, especially since the accused had been available for identification since their arrest.

Verdict
Acknowledging the inconsistencies and lack of substantive evidence, the Court set aside the appellants' convictions, stating that surmises and conjectures cannot form the basis of a conviction. It ordered their immediate release if not required in any other case.

Cause Title: Sanju Sonkar Alias Sanju Khatik v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2025:MPHC-JBP:1296

Date: January-10-2025

Bench: Justice Vivek Agarwal, Justice Devnarayan Mishra

[Read/Download order]