Defective identification procedures and unproven recovery of stolen property vitiate conviction based on circumstantial evidence.

On 05/05/2023, the complainant Ramswaroop Dewangan and three others were traveling via motorcycle when six individuals intercepted them near a dhaba on NH-130

The assailants allegedly brandished knives and a pistol, assaulted two victims (Santosh Tiwari and Sitaram Sahu), and robbed them of ₹1,500, a mobile phone, and a motorcycle

An FIR was lodged at PS Sargawa (Crime No. 72/2023).

Based on disclosure statements, the police recovered a motorcycle, knives, an Aadhaar card, and ₹300 from the appellants

Test Identification Parades (TIP) were 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

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 looted property and weapons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was legally proved by the prosecution?

3. Whether the conviction of the appellants is sustainable based on the available circumstantial and ocular evidence?

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

It relied on Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act concerning the discovery of facts based on information received from the accused

Relevant precedents included *Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala (2023)*, which mandates a healthy ratio between suspects and non-suspects in a TIP

and *Bollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy v. State of A.P.*, holding that court identification is substantive while TIP is corroborative

The court also cited *Raja Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025)* regarding the requirement for Investigating Officers to narrate the exact sequence of disclosure rather than merely exhibiting memos

The Court found the TIP fatally flawed because the ratio of outsiders to suspects was insufficient—only 3 outsiders for 4 suspects in the first instance, and 4 outsiders for 2 suspects in the second

Furthermore, the complainant admitted in cross-examination that the police had shown him the suspects prior to the TIP, destroying its evidentiary value

Regarding the recoveries, the independent witnesses turned hostile or provided contradictory statements, admitting they signed documents at the police station

The Investigating Officer failed to record the "exact words" of the disclosure as required by law

Additionally, the prosecution failed to link the recovered motorcycles to the crime, as engine and chassis numbers did not match the FIR descriptions

The recovery of a common amount of ₹300 was deemed insufficient to prove involvement in a robbery

It held that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the appellants or the recovery of the looted property beyond reasonable doubt

The appellants were acquitted of all charges under the IPC and Arms Act and ordered to be released immediately if not required in any other case