Sanchayita Lahkar

In a recent judgment, the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Single Bench of  Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court to an accused under Section 397 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court allowed the appeal, observing that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to significant procedural lapses in the identification process.

The appellant had earlier been convicted by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000. The High Court, however, noted deficiencies in the prosecution's approach, specifically concerning the evidentiary value of the test identification parade (TIP) and absence of corroborating independent witness testimony.

Also Read: ‘No Privity of Contract, No Consumer Status’: Supreme Court Sets Aside NCDRC Order, Holds ‘Tripartite Agreement Not Proved and Liability Cannot Be Fastened on Lender’

The prosecution alleged that on 05.03.2017, the complainant was returning from Urkura Railway Station after dropping his sister when he was accosted by two unknown persons near his parked motorcycle. One of the individuals allegedly threatened him with a knife and robbed him of his mobile phone, motorcycle key, ATM cards, cash between Rs. 300 to 350, and an account payee cheque of Rs. 8,000.

The FIR (Ex. P-8) was registered under Section 392 IPC against unknown individuals. Following investigation, the police arrested Gajendra @ Pappu Sahu and another co-accused. A map was prepared, and a memorandum statement of the co-accused led to the recovery of various items allegedly connected to the crime.

The case was subsequently committed to the Additional Sessions Court, Raipur, and registered as Sessions Case No. 52 of 2018. The Trial Court, upon hearing, convicted the appellant based on the evidence presented, including the testimony of nine witnesses and documentary evidence such as Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-16.

Among the witnesses, Kanhaiya Lal Thakur (PW-1), Malti Jaiswal (PW-2), and Inspector Yogita Khaparde (PW-7) provided testimony regarding the preparation of the site map and the registration of FIR, respectively. The complainant (PW-4) testified that he identified the accused during a TIP and in Court, although he admitted not informing the police about the knife at the time of the incident.

Tahsildar Yogendra Verma (PW-5) conducted the TIP and claimed the accused was identified by the complainant. However, the prosecution did not produce two key witnesses, Vishvanath Sahu and Tarun Sahu, who were reportedly present during the TIP.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 397 IPC, despite acknowledging doubts regarding the TIP and the non-seizure of the weapon and motorcycle in this specific case. It reasoned that these articles were seized in a connected crime (Crime No. 146 of 2017) and thus did not undermine the current case's integrity.

Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas, while deciding the appeal, considered whether the TIP conducted was legally valid and its evidentiary implications. The Court recorded that:

"The record of the trial court clearly demonstrates that none of the independent witnesses have been examined before the trial Court by the prosecution before whom the complainant identified the accused, as such, it creates doubt over the correctness of the TIP."

It further stated:

"It is well settled legal position of law that under Section 9 of the Evidence Act of TIP, is not substantive evidence in a criminal prosecution but is only corroborative evidence."

The Court cited several Supreme Court decisions, including Rameshwar Singh vs. State Of Jammu & Kashmir, (1971) 2 SCC 715, where it was held:

"The identification during police investigation... is not substantive evidence in law and it can only be used for corroborating or contradicting evidence of the witness concerned as given in court."

In Umesh Chandra vs. State of Uttrakhand, 2021 (17) SCC 616, the Apex Court recorded:

"A test identification parade under Section 9 the Evidence Act is not substantive evidence in a criminal prosecution but is only corroborative evidence."

Additionally, in Vinod @ Nasmulla Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 INSC 220, the Supreme Court stated:

"If the witness who identified a person or an article in the TIP is not examined during trial, the TIP report... would lose its evidentiary value for the purposes of identification."

Also Read: “Statements Are Hypothetical and Without Any Evidence”: Madras High Court Rejects Ex-Serviceman’s Plea on Havana Syndrome and AI Law

Justice Vyas applied these legal principles and concluded:

"From the above stated legal position, it is quite vivid that evidentiary value of the TIP is not substantive evidence but only corroborative evidence and unless the witnesses before whom the accused was identified by the complainant or victim was examined before the trial Court, test identification parade loses its evidentiary value."

The Court noted the prosecution's failure to examine Vishvanath Sahu and Tarun Sahu, rendering the TIP unreliable.

The High Court declared:

"Accordingly, the accused is acquitted of the charges for which he was tried. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are not discharged at this stage and the bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of section 437-A of the CrPC."

The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate

For the Respondent: Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Panel Lawyer

Case Title: Gajendra @ Pappu Sahu S/o Sukhdev Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:14218

Case Number: CRA No. 1272 of 2018

Bench: Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

[Read/Download order]