Ram Bhawan Harijan vs State of U.P.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5148 of 2025
Ram Bhawan Harijan
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Sushil Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Kiran Bala, G.A.
A.F.R.
Reserved on 03.04.2026
Delivered on 23.04.2026
Court No. - 42
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.
(Delivered by Jai Krishna Upadhyay, J.)
1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant;
Smt. Kiran Bala, learned counsel appearing for the infromant and Sri
Ajay Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the trial Court
record as well as the judgment and order passed by the trial Court.
2. Initially the learned counsel for the appellant was pressing the bail
application but subsequently when the learned counsel for the first
informant opposed the same and insisted that the case be finally heard,
learned counsel for the appellant argued the case finally. The paper book
in the case had already been prepared.
3. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the
judgment and order dated 18.04.2025 passed by the Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Prayagraj arising out of Case Crime No. 81 of 2021,
registered as Sessions Trial No. 2103 of 2021 (State Vs. Ram Bhawan
Harijan), whereby the learned District and Sessions Judge had convicted
appellant under Section 302/201 I.P.C. and sentenced him under Section
302 I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In case
of default in the payment of fine, he was sentenced to under go additional
sentence of one year. Further, he was sentenced three years rigorous

CRLA No. 5148 of 2025
2
imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- for under Section 201 I.P.C. In case
of default in the payment of fine, he has been sentenced to under go
additional sentence of 15 days.
4. The prosecution story in nutshell is as under:-
4.1. Informant Mukesh alias Virendra, son of Harilal, resident of Semri
Tarhar, Police Station Lalapur, District-Prayagraj, had given a tehrir at
Police Station Lalapur on 29.07.2021 and lodged first information report
to the effect that on 27.07.2021 at 4 pm, his daughter Mohini Devi, aged
about 5 years, had gone to play near the pond on the south side of the
village and she did not return home. Her description is as follows: Age 5
years, fair complexion, height 2.5 feet, short hair on the head, a pimple on
the right foot, wearing a blue frock, yellow leggings, and a white
handkerchief, and was barefoot. When she did not return, he searched for
her extensively but she was not found. Thereafter, the informant went to
the police station for registering the F.I.R. On 29.07.2021, the F.I.R. was
registered at Police Station Lalapur.
4.2. The informant again submitted an application dated 31.07.2021 to the
Station House Officer, Bara, District Prayagraj, to the effect that his
daughter, Mohini, had gone to the pond to play on 27.07.2021 at around
4:00 p.m., however she had not returned and had gone missing. After a
thorough search, he submitted a written application on 29.07.2021,
registering a case under Section 363 of I.P.C. He, subsequently heard that
a body of an unidentified girl had been recovered at the Bara police
station. Upon receiving this information, the informant reached the Bara
police station. Upon viewing the body, he identified it as that of his
daughter, Mohini, aged around 5 years. He suspected that Ram Bhawan
Harijan, a resident of his village in the district of Prayagraj, had murdered
his daughter Mohini and had thrown her body in the canal to conceal it.
4.3 Thereafter, in the instant case, an inquest was prepared by S.I. Ajit
Singh and other documents were prepared. The inquest report and other
documents were exhibited as Ex. Ka-3 and Ex. Ka7 to Ex. Ka11. After
the inquest report was prepared, the body of the deceased Mohini was
sent for postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. Uttam Singh Yadav. A
total of three injuries on the body of the deceased were found and the
cause of death was axphysia due to strangulation and smothering. The
post-mortem report is exhibited as Ex. Ka6.

CRLA No. 5148 of 2025
3
4.4. This case was investigated by SI Ajay Kumar Gupta, who prepared
the site plan Ex. Ka-7 and recorded the statements of witnesses under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet
against accused-appellant Ram Bhawan Harijan was submitted and
thereafter, the matter was committed to the Court of Session and charges
under Sections 302/201 I.P.C. were framed against the accused. The
accused denied the charges and claimed trial.
5. During the course of trial as many as 9 prosecution witnesses were
examined. The incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution
evidence were put to the appellant while recording his statement under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellant denied the incriminating circumstances
and claimed that he had been falsely implicated in the present case.
6. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial judge convicted the
appellant. Hence, this appeal.
7. Sri Sushil Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submitted that:-
(i) PW1, PW2 and PW3 are not eye witnesses of the incident. The
prosecution has not examined any eye witness of the incident. He further
submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove the
intention/motive to commit the murder of the deceased.
(ii) This case is based upon circumstantial evidence and the chain of
circumstances has not been established by the prosectuion. In the present
case, there is no evidence regarding the last seen. The accused has been
only identified by the so called ‘shawl’ of the accused. However, it has
also been submitted that the shawl was not belonging to the accused.
Moreover, PW6 Ajit Singh, who prepared the inquest report has stated
that the body was not wrapped in Shawl due to which the statement
related to the shawl also become false and doubtful.
8. Per contra, Smt. Kiran Bala, learned counsel for the informant and Sri
Ajay Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State submitted that prosecution has
successfully proved that the accused had enmity with the informant and
had threatened him a few days immediately before the incident. They
submitted that in the present case, the accused was identified by his
shawl. Prosecution witnesses had supported the version of the
prosecution. They lastly submitted that the trial Court has rightly
convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant. Therefore, the appeal

CRLA No. 5148 of 2025
4
lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
9.Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to first analyze the
testimony of witnesses.
10. PW1 Virendra alias Mukesh is the informant who has stated that he is
illiterate and he can only sign. The incident occurred approximately one
year and four months ago at 4 p.m. On that day, his daughter Mohini,
aged around 5 to 6 years, went to play in a pond situate on the south side
of the village. When she did not return, he searched for her everywhere,
but failed to trace her out. On the next day, he again searched everywhere
for her. His father, Hari Lal, and the village Pradhan Naresh, also
searched for her. When the whereabouts of her daughter were not found,
he along with his father and village Pradhan went to the police station
Lalapur to register a missing report. After four days of filing the missing
report, the police Inspector of Police Station Lalapur informed him that a
dead body of a girl had been found. On receiving the said information he
along with his father Hari Lal, elder brother of his father Baijnath,Village
Pradhan Naresh and Ibrahim went to the police Station concerned . The
concerned Inspector of Police took all of them to the Canal where they
saw that the dead body of his daughter Mohini was lying. He recognized
the dead body by looking at her face and clothes. The body was swollen
and was wrapped in a Shawl which belonged to the accused Ram Bhawan
Harijan. He knew the accused Ram Bhawan from before the incident
since he was his neighbour. He suspected that Ram Bhawan had murdered
his daughter and had thrown her body into the canal to hide it. Before this
incident, there was a dispute with Ram Bhawan. He had said, "You call
me 'Katli-Katli', and I will destroy you."
11. PW2 Hari Lal is the grandfather of the deceased who had stated that
incident is of the year 2021. About 27 to 28 months back at around 4 pm,
his grand-daughter Mohini, had gone to play in the pond, south of the
house and did not return. When she did not return, he along with others
searched for her but could not find her. When his granddaughter had gone
to play, she was wearing speckled sky blue and yellow leggings. She was
wearing a dark dull scarf in her neck. His son Virendra and Mukesh had
reported the incident to the police station about the fact that her
granddaughter had gone missing. The police came and inquired. After

CRLA No. 5148 of 2025
5
that, he, Baijnath, Naresh, Doctor Pradhan, and a few other people from
the village went to Pratappur with the police. He had said that all of them
had searched extensively but couldn't find the girl. On the fourth day, the
police inspector informed them that a dead body had been found on the
canal track near Bhodi village Bara police station. They asked him to go
and identify the body. His elder brother Baijnath, Harilal, Swayam
Ibrahim, Doctor Pradhan and Mukesh went there to identify the body.
When they reached there, they saw that it was his granddaughter's body,
which was swollen and the tongue was sticking out. They had seen that
the dead body was wrapped in a shawl, which belonged to Ram Bhawan.
Ram Bhawan used to walk around the village wearing it. All this,
completely convinced him that Ram Bhawan had murdered his
granddaughter. The body was sealed at the spot where it was found, and
the Panchayatnama proceedings were conducted and it was sent for post-
mortem. He had stated that along with him there were people namely, Dr.
Naresh Kumar, my elder brother Baijnath, Virendra alias Mukesh, and
Ibrahim. He had put his thumb impression on the Panchayatnama. He had
further stated that 3 to 4 months prior to the incident, Ram Bhawan had
threatened him that he would kill him, ruin his sons and leave them
worthless. He has proved the inquest paper nos. 7A/2 to 7A/3, which is
exhibited as Ex. Ka3. He stated that four days after filing the report, the
dead body of his granddaughter was found. He had gone to the place
where the dead body was found, in connection with this incident.
12. PW 3 Baijnath stated that Mukesh alias Virendra is his nephew. His
daughter's name was Mohini. The incident occurred on 27.07 2021, at
around 4 p.m. Mohini was five years old at that time. She went to play
near the pond to the south of his house that day from where, she did not
return. They began searching for her, but could not find her. The next day,
their family and villagers searched again. On 29.07.2021, Mukesh lodged
a report at the police station. The police searched his house and
surrounding areas. His nephew, Surendra, circulated Mohini's posters
throughout the village and via mobile phone. On 31.07.2021, the police
called them to the police station and took them to the canal in Bhodi
village, where the dead body of a young girl was found. Upon seeing the
dead body, they recognized it as that of Mohini. She was wearing a
spotted kurti, a sky-blue shirt, and a dull white scarf wrapped around her
neck. The dead body was swollen and her tongue was protruding. The

CRLA No. 5148 of 2025
6
body was wrapped in a spotted shawl. He recognized that shawl, but did
not tell anyone. Then the body was taken to Police Station Bara. At the
police station, the dead body was sealed in a white cloth and the
formalities were done. A Panchayatnama was done. His signature is on
Panchayatnama paper no. 7A which is exhibited as Ex. Ka3. Then the
body was taken to the mortuary. After the post-mortem, they brought the
dead body to Daraganj and performed the last rites. After that, when the
Inspector came to the village, his brother Hari Lal called for the shawl
which was with Mohini's body. He did not tell anything on the spot but
went to the police station and told that the shawl belonged to the accused
Ram Bhawan.
13. PW4 HC Samarendra Singh stated that on 29.07.2021, he was posted
in the Police Station Lalapur, District Prayagraj. On that day, on the basis
of written report of informant Mukesh alias Virendra, son of Hari Lal
Raidas, resident of Semri Tarhar, Police Station Lalapur, District
Prayagraj, FIR No. 81/21 was registered at 15.31 PM against unknown,
under section 363 of IPC. He has proved the chick F.I.R. which is
exhibited as Ex. Ka4.
14. PW5 is the Dr. Uttam Singh Yadav who had stated that on
31.07.2021, he was posted as Medical Officer in Tej Bahadur Sapru
Hospital. On that day, he was on duty with Medical Officer Dr.
Suryabhan Singh Yadav in the mortuary for postmortem. On that day, he
conducted post-mortem of the dead body. The dead body was 112 cm tall,
of medium built, and had been decapitated. The skin could be easily
removed.
14.1 Injuries as were reported:-
External injuries on the lip-
1. Abrasion 1 cm X 0.5 cm above the lip
2. Contusion 1 x 0.5 cm in the middle of the lower lip
3. A ligature mark measuring approximately 3 cm wide was found around
the neck. The ligature mark was located 6 cm below the groin and 6 cm
below the left shoulder. Inspection of the ligature mark revealed blood
clots within the muscle, and the hyoid bone, the killing chest bone, was
found to be broken.
Note- Pelvic content coming out through vaginal opening.

CRLA No. 5148 of 2025
7
Internal injury – found on opening the brain.
14.2. The fifth and sixth vertebrae on the right side of the chest were
found broken. The pleura was congested. Both lungs were congested. The
stomach contained 200 grams of food. Intestinal mucus and gases were
present. The large intestine contained the liver, spleen, pancreas, and both
kidneys. Objects were protruding from the vagina and the inside of the
cavity. The probable time of death was approximately four days prior.
The cause of death was axphysia, strangulation, and smothering. There
was a cleft, a leggings, and a towel on the deceased's body. The post-
mortem was started at 2:20 and concluded at 2:50. The seal was found to
be intact.
15.PW6 Ajeet Singh was the Sub-Inspector who has stated in his
statement that on 30.07.2021, the body of an unidentified deceased was
found in the Bhodi Canal. The information was provided by Vimlesh, son
of Bhagirathi, a resident of Bhodi village, Bara police station. Since he
was the station in-charge, the responsibility of preparing inquest report
was assigned to him. He has proved the inquest report paper nos. 7A/2 to
7A/4 which is exhibited as Ex. Ka3. He has also proved the documents
relating to the inquest report i.e. the Challan Nash, Photonash, letter of
R.I. and letter of C.M.O., which are exhibited as Ex. Ka7 to Ka11.
16. PW7 Inspector Ajay Kumar Gupta was the Investigating Officer, who
has prepared the site plan of the incident which is exhibited as Ex. Ka-8.
17. PW8 Manish Kumar Tripathi was one of the Investigating Officers in
the instant case who had stated that investigation of the instant case was
transferred to him by the earlier Investigating Officer, namely, Vrandavan
Rai, who stated that on the instruction of S.I. Ajeet Singh, he prepared the
site plan of the place where the dead body was recovered. He has proved
the site paln which is exhibited as Ex. Ka8. He has also proved the charge
sheet submitted against the accused-appellant, which is exhibited as Ex.
Ka9.
18. PW9 Manoj Kumar was the Head Constable who has proved the
recovered articles i.e. Shawl, Frock, Leggings and Scarf as material
exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively.
19. Evidently, the present case rests entirely upon circumstantial
evidence, as admittedly there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged
occurrence. It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that in cases

CRLA No. 5148 of 2025
8
where direct evidence is absent, the court must meticulously examine the
chain of circumstances to determine if they lead to the sole conclusion of
the guilt of the accused. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
landmark case of
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra
(1984) 4 SCC 116 , circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and
should be so complete as to not leave any reasonable ground for a
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. Accordingly, we
shall now proceed to discuss the specific circumstances and the evidence
produced by the prosecution to see whether they established a complete
chain as whether they indicated, beyond a reasonable doubt, the guilt of
the accused.
20. In the present case, there is only one circumstance against the accused
and it is also the cornerstone of the prosecution's case i.e. recovery of the
dead body, allegedly wrapped in a "shawl" belonging to the appellant.
However, a fatal contradiction exists between the ocular testimony and
the contemporaneous documentary evidence. While PW2 and PW3
emphatically stated that the body was found wrapped in the appellant's
shawl, the testimony of Dr. Uttam Singh Yadav (PW5) and the Inquest
Report prepared by SI Ajeet Singh (PW6) categorically omit the presence
of any such shawl during the inquest and autopsy. This discrepancy
suggests that the "link" of the shawl may have been an afterthought to
connect the appellant to the crime.
21. Even if the court were to momentarily overlook the contradiction
regarding the presence of the shawl, the prosecution’s reliance on its
identification is legally unsound. A perusal of the record reveals a total
absence of any specific description concerning the shawl’s color, pattern,
fabric, or unique identifying marks. The witnesses merely offered a
generic identification, claiming it to be a ‘spotted shawl’ belonging to the
accused without explaining how they distinguished it from any other
common garment. It is a settled principle of law that for a piece of
clothing to serve as a link in a circumstantial chain, it must possess
distinct characteristics that preclude the possibility of it belonging to
anyone else. In a rural setting where mass-produced garments are
common, there is no "hard and fast rule" that a particular type of shawl is
unique to one individual. Without a formal Test Identification Parade
(TIP) for the property or a detailed forensic description in the seizure

CRLA No. 5148 of 2025
9
memo, it is hazardous to conclude that the shawl found, if it existed, was
the exact one owned by the appellant.
22.The prosecution’s narrative regarding the shawl is further marred by a
significant procedural lapse during the Panchayat Nama (inquest)
conducted on 31.07.21. According to the PW-3, a police officer later
came to the village on 01.08.2021 claiming he had "brought this shawl" to
show them. As a matter of standard legal procedure, whenever a
Panchayat Nama is conducted, every article of clothing or material found
on the deceased must be immediately seized, documented in the recovery
memo, and sealed on the spot to be sent for forensic examination (FSL).
This protocol is mandatory to ensure that the evidence is protected from
any form of tampering or planting. However, in this case, the fact that the
shawl was allegedly being carried around by a police officer to be shown
to villagers, rather than being in a sealed forensic cover, raises a grave
concern. This suggests that the "chain of custody" was broken. If the
shawl was not sealed at the scene and was instead handled loosely by the
police, it loses all its evidentiary value, as it becomes impossible for the
Court to be certain that the item was not planted or altered to falsely
implicate the accused. Such a casual approach to vital physical evidence
creates a serious doubt in the prosecution's story.
23.Having addressed the factual inconsistencies surrounding the recovery
of the shawl, it is imperative to evaluate the legal framework under which
such a recovery, if accepted, would operate. The prosecution relies on the
identification of this “shawl” to bridge the gap between the accused and
the deceased. In the eyes of the law, such a link is governed by Section 9
of the Indian Evidence Act, which renders relevant any of those facts
necessary to explain or introduce a relevant fact, or those which establish
the identity of any "thing" whose identity is relevant. Here, the shawl is
the "thing" through which the prosecution seeks to establish the identity
of the accused. Consequently, the admissibility and weight of this
evidence must be scrutinized under Section 9 of Indian Evidence Act,
1872 which is as follows:
“ 9. Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts.
Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact,
or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or
relevant fact, or which establish the identity of anything or person

CRLA No. 5148 of 2025
10
whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in
issue or relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of parties
by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they
are necessary for that purpose.”
24. Therefore, it can be concluded that Section 9 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 is a provision, designed to ensure that the evidentiary narrative
is complete and intelligible. It recognizes five distinct categories of facts
as relevant:
(i) those necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact,
(ii) those which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue
or relevant fact,
(iii) those which establish the identity of any person or thing whose
identity is relevant,
(iv) those which fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant
fact occurred, and
(v) those which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was
transacted.
25. The importance of Section 9 lies in its dual nature; while sometimes
much of the focus in criminal trials often rests on the identification of the
accused, the law places equal emphasis on the identification of things.
The inclusion of “thing” alongside “person” makes clear that the
provision is not confined to human identification alone. Courts have
consistently applied Section 9 to the identification of stolen property,
forged documents, handwriting, or other material objects, recognizing that
such identification is often crucial to linking circumstantial evidence with
the fact in issue. For instance, recovery of stolen articles from the
accused, verification of signatures on disputed documents, or
determination of the genuineness of a will are all admissible under this
section. In the same manner recovery of any article of accused person
from the body of deceased is also relevant and admissible under this
provision. Thus, Section 9 operates as a connective tissue in the law of
evidence, bridging facts in issue with explanatory or corroborative
circumstances, and ensuring that both persons and things are properly

CRLA No. 5148 of 2025
11
identified, contextualized, and tested within the judicial process.
Accordingly, in the instant matter the alleged ‘shawl’ is relevant as a
thing and facts establishing its identity are also relevant.
26.Further, the primary legal question is whether the mere recovery of an
article, and its subsequent identification by witnesses is sufficient to
sustain a conviction under the law. It is pertinent to note here that Section
9 requires that the circumstances surrounding the identification should be
beyond reproach. If, as the witnesses stated, the police officer simply
brought the shawl to the village and claimed it was the one used in the
crime, the act of identification is no longer an independent act of
recognition; it becomes a guided suggestion. Without a distinct and
recorded description that matches the appellant’s specific property, the
shawl fails to meet the threshold of a "fact that establishes identity."
27. Following this legal logic, even when the shawl is relevant under
Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, it cannot serve as the sole basis for
a conviction. It is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that
the evidence of identification, whether of a person or a thing as
contemplated under Section 9, is inherently a weak type of evidence and
only corroborative in nature. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P., (2005) 9 SCC 631 stated:
“ 16. As was observed by this Court in Matru v. State of U.P. [(1971)
2 SCC 75 :1971 SCC (Cri) 391] identification tests do not constitute
substantive evidence.They are primarily meant for the purpose of
helping the investigating agency with an assurance that their
progress with the investigation into the offence is proceeding on the
right lines. The identification can only be used as corroborative of
the statement in court. (See Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain [(1973) 2
SCC 406: 1973 SCC (Cri) 828] .) The necessity for holding an
identification parade can arise only when the accused are not
previously known to the witnesses. The whole idea of a test
identification parade is that witnesses who claim to have seen the
culprits at the time of occurrence are to identify them from the midst
of other persons without any aid or any other source. The test is done
to check upon their veracity. In other words, the main object of
holding an identification parade, during the investigation stage, is to
test the memory of the witnesses based upon first impression and also
to enable the prosecution to decide whether all or any of them could
be cited as eyewitnesses of the crime. The identification proceedings
are in the nature of tests and significantly, therefore, there is no
provision for it in the Code and the Evidence Act. It is desirable that
a test identification parade should be conducted as soon as after the
arrest of the accused. This becomes necessary to eliminate the
possibility of the accused being shown to the witnesses prior to the

CRLA No. 5148 of 2025
12
test identification parade. This is a very common plea of the accused
and, therefore, the prosecution has to be cautious to ensure that
there is no scope for making such an allegation. If, however,
circumstances are beyond control and there is some delay, it cannot
be said to be fatal to the prosecution.
17. It is trite to say that the substantive evidence is the evidence of
identification in court. Apart from the clear provisions of Section 9 of
the Evidence Act, the position in law is well settled by a catena of
decisions of this Court. The facts, which establish the identity of the
accused persons, are relevant under Section 9 of the Evidence Act.
As a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is the
statement made in court. The evidence of mere identification of the
accused person at the trial for the first time is from its very nature
inherently of a weak character. The purpose of a prior test
identification, therefore, is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness
of that evidence. It is, accordingly, considered a safe rule of
prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony
of witnesses in court as to the identity of the accused who are
strangers to them, in the form of earlier identification proceedings.
This rule of prudence, however, is subject to exceptions, when, for
example, the court is impressed by a particular witness on whose
testimony it can safely rely, without such or other corroboration. The
identification parades belong to the stage of investigation, and there
is no provision in the Code which obliges the investigating agency to
hold or confers a right upon the accused to claim a test identification
parade. They do not constitute substantive evidence and these
parades are essentially governed by Section 162 of the Code. Failure
to hold a test identification parade would not make inadmissible the
evidence of identification in court. The weight to be attached to such
identification should be a matter for the courts of fact. In appropriate
cases it may accept the evidence of identification even without
insisting on corroboration. (See Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Admn. [AIR
1958 SC 350: 1958 Cri LJ 698], Vaikuntam Chandrappa v. State of
A.P. [AIR 1960 SC 1340: 1960 Cri LJ 1681], Budhsen v. State of
U.P. [(1970) 2 SCC 128: 1970 SCC (Cri) 343: AIR 1970 SC 1321]
and Rameshwar Singh v. State of J&K [(1971) 2 SCC 715: 1971SCC
(Cri) 638: AIR 1972 SC 102].”
28. Then Recently in Vinod @ Nasmulla v. State of Chhattisgarh,
Hon’ble Supreme Court again reiterated that:
(2025) 4 SCC 312
“ 21. A test identification parade under Section 9 of the Evidence Act,
1872[] is not substantive evidence in a criminal prosecution but *
is only corroborative evidence. The purpose of holding a test
identification parade during the stage of investigation is, firstly, to
ensure that the investigating agency is proceeding in the right
direction where the accused is unknown and, secondly, to serve as a
corroborative piece of evidence when the witness identifies the
accused during trial. [Umesh Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand,
(2021) 17 SCC 616, para 9; Iqbal v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 623,
para 15: (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 301] The evidence of identification
merely corroborates and strengthens the oral testimony in court

CRLA No. 5148 of 2025
13
which alone is the primary and substantive evidence as to identity.
[Hari Nath v. State of U.P., (1988) 1 SCC 14, para 19: 1988 SCC
(Cri) 14]
22. In Rameshwar Singh v. State of J&K [Rameshwar Singh v. State
of J&K, (1971) 2 SCC 715: 1971 SCC (Cri) 638], a three-Judge
Bench of this Court succinctly summarised the evidentiary value of
the TIP as under: (SCC p. 719, para 6) “6. … 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. The identification proceedings
… must be so conducted that evidence with regard to them when
given at the trial, enables the court safely to form appropriate
judicial opinion about its evidentiary value for the purpose of
corroborating or contradicting the statement in Court of the
identifying witness.”
Thus, if the witness who identified a person or an article in the TIP is
not
examined during trial, the TIP report which may be useful to
corroborate or contradict him would lose its evidentiary value for the
purposes of identification.
23. The rationale behind the aforesaid legal principle is that unless
the witness enters the witness box and submits himself for cross-
examination how can it be ascertained as to on what basis he
identified the person or the article. Because it is quite possible that
before the TIP is conducted the accused may be shown to the witness
or the witness may be tutored to identify the accused. Be that as it
may, once the person who identifies the accused during the TIP is not
produced as a witness during trial, the TIP is of no use to sustain an
identification by some other witness.”
29.The legal character of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) as a non-
substantive piece of evidence has been firmly established through a long
line of Supreme Court jurisprudence, extending from early precedents to
very recent rulings. In foundational cases like Kanta Prashad v. Delhi
Administration (1958) SCC Online SC 10 and Sheikh Hasib v. State of
Bihar (1972) 4 SCC 773 , it has been clarified that TIP is primarily an
investigative tool intended to reassure the police that their inquiry is
moving in the right direction. This principle was further elaborated in
cases like Dana Yadav v. State of Bihar (2002) 7 SCC 295 and Munshi
Singh (supra) , where the Court observed that while dock identification is
the only substantive evidence, a prior TIP is a "rule of prudence"
necessary to corroborate the witness's memory. Most recently, in Vinod
@ Nasmulla(supra) the Supreme Court reaffirmed that TIP cannot be the
sole basis of conviction.

CRLA No. 5148 of 2025
14
30. The collective findings of these judgments and law laid down in
Section 9 of Indian Evidence Act,1972(Section 7 of the Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) establishes that the primary purpose of a Test
Identification Parade (TIP) or the identification of property under this
section is to provide corroborative value to the investigation; it is not a
substantive piece of evidence that can stand alone as be the basis of
conviction. In the eyes of law, identification is a matter of opinion and
memory, which are susceptible to error, influence, or suggestion,
especially when the object in question is a common article like a shawl. A
"weak" or"corroborative" piece of evidence as per Section 9 requires the
support of other strong, independent links to complete the chain of
circumstances. Therefore, the evidence of the shawl, being corroborative
in nature, is insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.
31.In view of the aforesaid discussions and the facts and circumstances of
the case, we are of the view that the findings recorded by the learned Trial
Court in the impugned judgment are not in conformity with the evidence
on record. The prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence;
however, the chain of circumstances is far from complete. Notably, the
recovery of the "shawl" is highly doubtful and lacks evidentiary value.
Furthermore, the serious lapses in the investigation process and the lack
of independent witnesses create a significant gap in the prosecution's
version of events. The learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate that in a
case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be of a
conclusive nature, leaving no room for any other hypothesis except the
guilt of the accused. Consequently, the judgment of conviction of learned
trial Court is found to be unsustainable in the eyes of the law and is liable
to be set aside.
32. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, and the judgment of conviction is
hereby set aside.
33. The appellant is in jail. If the appellant is not required in any other
case, he be released forthwith.
34. Let a copy of the judgment and order alongwith trial court record be
sent to the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court for
compliance.
35. Before parting with the judgment, I would like to express my

CRLA No. 5148 of 2025
15
appreciation to my Research Associate, Ms. Anjali Singh for her thorough
research and assistance to the Court in the instant case.
April 23, 2026
AKT
(Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad