Defective identification procedures and unproven recovery of stolen articles from accused warrant acquittal.

On May 5, 2023, the complainant Ramswaroop Dewangan and three others were intercepted by six individuals on motorcycles near Artee Dhaba.

The assailants allegedly brandished knives and a pistol, assaulted the victims, and robbed them of ₹1,500, a mobile phone, and a Hero HF-Deluxe motorcycle.

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

Following their custodial statements, the police purportedly recovered cash, an Aadhaar card, two knives, and three motorcycles.

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

The appellants challenged the conviction on the grounds of a flawed Test Identification Parade (TIP) and lack of independent corroboration for the recoveries.

1. Whether the Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted in accordance with legal safeguards to establish the identity of the accused.

2. Whether the recovery of the alleged stolen property and weapons of offence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was legally proved.

3. Whether the prosecution established a conclusive link between the recovered motorcycles and the property allegedly stolen during the incident.

The Court applied Section 374(2) of the CrPC regarding appellate jurisdiction.

The Court applied Sections 394, 397 (Robbery with attempt to cause death) and 307 (Attempt to murder) of the IPC.

It relied on Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the discovery of facts through custodial statements.

Key precedents included Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala (2023), establishing that a TIP is vitiated if the accused is shown to the witness beforehand or if the suspect-to-outsider ratio is inadequate.

Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024), which mandates that Investigating Officers must narrate the exact disclosure statements in court rather than merely exhibiting memos.

The Court found the TIP fundamentally flawed as only three to four outsiders were mixed with four to five accused, failing to maintain the mandatory "safe ratio" of 1:5.

Crucially, the complainant 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 search.

The Investigating Officer (PW-14) failed to depose the exact "disclosure words" of the accused in court, violating Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Furthermore, the prosecution failed to produce registration documents for the stolen motorcycle, and the engine/chassis numbers of the recovered vehicles did not match the stolen vehicle's description in the FIR.

The Court held that the identification was "shaky" and the recoveries were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellants were acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released from custody immediately, provided they were not required in any other case.

The Court directed the Trial Court record and a copy of the judgment to be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for compliance.