Facts
On May 5, 2023, the complainant Ramswaroop Dewangan and three others were traveling by motorcycle from Sanvepur toward Sargaon when they were intercepted by six persons on two motorcycles.
Source reference: p. 5The assailants allegedly brandished knives and a pistol, assaulted the victims, and robbed them of ₹1,500, a touch-screen mobile phone, and a Hero HF Deluxe motorcycle.
Source reference: p. 6, 10Based on a report at Sargaon Police Station, the Appellants were arrested.
Source reference: no citationFollowing a trial, the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, convicted the Appellants under Sections 341/149, 397/394, and 307/149 of the IPC, and Section 25(1)(1-B) and 27 of the Arms Act.
Source reference: p. 4-5The Appellants challenged the conviction, arguing that the Test Identification Parade (TIP) was flawed and that recoveries were not legally proved.
Source reference: p. 7-8Issues
1. Whether the Test Identification Parade (TIP) conducted during the investigation was legally valid and reliable for establishing the identity of the accused.
Source reference: p. 11 / para. 132. Whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of the robbed articles (motorcycle, cash, and weapons) from the possession of the Appellants as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Source reference: p. 16 / para. 20Law Applied
The Court applied Section 374(2) of the CrPC regarding the right to appeal.
Source reference: p. 4The Court applied Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the discovery of facts based on information received from the accused.
Source reference: p. 19-21It relied on Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala (2023), which mandates a healthy ratio between suspects and non-suspects in a TIP and requires that suspects must not be shown to witnesses beforehand.
Source reference: p. 13Furthermore, the Court applied the principle from Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024), emphasizing that the exact statement leading to discovery must be recorded and independent witnesses must verify the process to lend it sanctity.
Source reference: p. 18-20Reasoning
The Court found the TIP highly suspect because the complainant admitted in cross-examination that the police had shown him the accused persons prior to the parade.
Source reference: p. 15 / para. 19Even the ratio of suspects to non-suspects was statistically insufficient (only 3-4 outsiders for multiple accused).
Source reference: p. 12-13Regarding recoveries, the independent witnesses (PW-6 and PW-8) turned hostile or admitted they signed documents at the police station without witnessing the search.
Source reference: p. 17-18The Investigating Officer failed to narrate the specific disclosure statements in court, merely exhibiting the memos, which is insufficient proof of content under Ramanand v. State of U.P. (2023).
Source reference: p. 21 / para. 25Additionally, the motorcycle recovered did not match the registration number of the stolen vehicle, and no mobile phones were recovered from the Appellants.
Source reference: p. 22Holding
The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the Appellants or the link between the recovered items and the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
The TIP was declared inadmissible as it was "meaningless" once the suspects were shown to the witness.
Source reference: p. 13, 15The court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated February 6, 2024, and acquitted all Appellants of all charges.
Source reference: p. 23-24The Appellants were ordered to be released immediately unless required in other cases.
Source reference: p. 24Original Court PDF
Saurabh alias Samay Dhruve & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in