Defective identification procedures and unproven recoveries from the accused vitiate a conviction for dacoity.

On May 5, 2023, the complainant Ramswaroop Dewangan (PW-1) and three companions were traveling by motorcycle when they were allegedly intercepted by six individuals near Artee Dhaba

The assailants allegedly attacked them with knives, causing injuries to Santosh Tiwari (PW-5) and Sudharaman Sahu (PW-2), and robbed them of cash (approx. ₹1,500), a mobile phone, and a motorcycle

Based on a First Information Report (FIR) lodged at Police Station Saragaon, the six appellants were arrested.

The Trial Court (First Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli) convicted the appellants under Sections 341/149, 397/394, and 307/149 of the IPC, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act for two appellants

The appellants challenged this conviction before the High Court on grounds of faulty Test Identification Parade (TIP) and lack of independent corroboration

Whether the Test Identification Parade (TIP) conducted during the investigation was legally valid and reliable for establishing the identity of the accused

Whether the recovery of the weapons and alleged stolen property under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was proved in accordance with law

The Court applied Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the relevance of facts for identification and the procedural safeguards for TIP established in Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala (2023)

It emphasized the necessity of a healthy ratio (at least 1:5) between suspects and non-suspects

The Court applied Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the relevance of facts for identification and the procedural safeguards for TIP established in Bollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1991)

Regarding recoveries, the Court applied Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and the principles in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024)

Regarding recoveries, the Court applied Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and the principles in Raja Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025), which require the Investigating Officer to narrate the exact sequence of disclosure and ensure recoveries are not signed as a mere formality in the police station.

The Court found the TIP fundamentally flawed because only one out of four eyewitnesses (PW-1) participated in the parade

Furthermore, the ratio of non-suspects to suspects was grossly inadequate (dropping below 1:1 in some instances), violating established jurisprudence

Crucially, PW-1 admitted in cross-examination that the police had shown him the accused persons prior to the TIP, rendering the identification evidence inadmissible

Regarding the recoveries, the independent witnesses (PW-6 and PW-8) turned hostile or admitted to signing documents at the police station without witnessing the actual discovery

The Court noted that the prosecution failed to link the recovered motorcycles to the one allegedly stolen, as the engine and chassis numbers did not match the FIR descriptions

Additionally, the recovery of a common Aadhaar card and a small sum of ₹300 was deemed insufficient to establish a link to the dacoity

The Court answered both issues in the negative.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated February 6, 2024, and acquitted all appellants of all charges

The Court ordered their immediate release from custody unless required in any other case