Defective identification procedures and unproven recoveries from the accused render a conviction for robbery unsustainable.

On 05/05/2023, the complainant, Ramswaroop Dewangan [PW-1], along with three others, was traveling via motorcycle toward Village Temri.

Near Arti Dhaba, six individuals on two motorcycles allegedly intercepted them, brandished knives and a pistol, assaulted the companions (causing injuries to Santosh Tiwari and Sitaram Sahu), and robbed them of ₹1,500, a mobile phone, and a motorcycle.

Following an investigation, the Appellants were arrested based on memorandum statements and subsequent Test Identification Parades (TIP) conducted on 06/05/2023 and 20/05/2023.

The Trial Court convicted the Appellants under Sections 341/149, 397/394, and 307/149 of the IPC, and some under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The Appellants challenged the conviction, citing procedural illegalities in the identification and recovery process.

1. Whether the Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted in accordance with established legal principles and can form a reliable basis for conviction.

2. Whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery of the looted property and weapons from the Appellants under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

3. Whether the identity of the recovered motorcycle was established as the specific property stolen during the incident.

The court applied Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the discovery of facts based on information received from the accused.

It relied on Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala (2023) regarding the mandatory ratio between suspects and non-suspects in a TIP and the requirement that suspects not be shown to witnesses beforehand.

The court further applied its own precedent in Pramod v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024).

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024), which mandates that the Investigating Officer must narrate the exact sequence and words of a disclosure statement for it to be admissible.

Recoveries made or signed in a police station lose sanctity as per Raja Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025).

The Court found the TIP fundamentally flawed as the suspect-to-nonsuspect ratio was insufficient (e.g., only 3 outsiders mixed with 4 accused) and the complainant admitted the police showed him the accused prior to the TIP, rendering the identification meaningless.

Regarding recoveries, the independent witnesses either turned hostile or admitted to signing documents at the police station rather than at the spot of recovery.

The Investigating Officer [PW-14] failed to testify to the specific disclosure statements made by each accused, merely exhibiting the memos, which does not amount to legal proof under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Furthermore, the prosecution failed to link the recovered motorcycles to the crime as the engine/chassis numbers did not match the stolen vehicle described in the FIR.

The recovery of a common identity card and a small sum of cash (₹300) was deemed insufficient to establish participation in a dacoity.

The Court held that when the identification process is doubtful and the recovery of incriminating articles is not proved in accordance with law, the prosecution's case fails to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Appellants were acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released immediately from custody unless required in other cases.