Conviction Set Aside Due to Fatal Inconsistencies in Witness Testimony and Absence of Independent Corroboration

The informant, Birendra Prasad Gupta (a member of the CPI-ML), alleged that on September 6, 2000, while returning to his party office on a motorcycle, he was intercepted at Tikuliya Chowk by six to seven armed occupants of a Gypsy. He was forcibly abducted, tied, and assaulted.

The accused allegedly engaged in firing and exploding bombs when intercepted by the Gopalpur Police, yet were eventually apprehended.

Notably, two separate FIRs were registered for the same incident: Chanpatia P.S. Case No. 156 of 2000 (abduction) and Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 37 of 2000 (arms and explosives).

The Trial Court convicted the six appellants under Sections 364/34 of the IPC, sentencing them to ten years of rigorous imprisonment.

1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt given the material contradictions in eye-witness testimonies.

2. Whether the failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP) and relying solely on dock identification for the first time during trial is legally sustainable.

3. Whether the previous acquittal of the appellants in the related case (Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 37 of 2000) for the same occurrence impacts the current conviction.

The court applied Section 364 (kidnapping or abducting in order to murder) and Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

It emphasized the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove its case "beyond reasonable doubt" rather than on a "preponderance of probabilities".

The court relied on the precedent of Nazim and Others v. The State of Uttarakhand (2025 INSC 1184) regarding the procedural necessity of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) and the unreliability of dock identification for first-time witnesses.

The Court observed that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies. P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 contradicted each other on the number of assailants (two versus six) and their identity.

Critically, the informant alleged a brutal assault, yet no medical evidence or injury report supported this claim.

The Court noted that despite the occurrence taking place in a public area, no independent witnesses were examined, and all P.W.s were highly interested parties.

The Court also highlighted that the appellants had already been acquitted in the simultaneous trial arising from the same transaction (Exhibit F), making the contradictory findings in the present case legally fragile.

The appeals were allowed, and the judgment of conviction dated January 14, 2016, was set aside. The appellants were acquitted of all charges and ordered to be discharged from their bail bonds.