Defective identification proceedings and unproven recovery from accused vitiate conviction based on circumstantial evidence.

On May 5, 2023, the complainant Ramswaroop Dewangan [P.W. 01] and his companions were intercepted by six individuals on motorcycles near Arati Dhaba.

The assailants allegedly nomenclatured as the Appellants, attacked them with knives, causing injuries to Santosh Tiwari [P.W. 05] and Sitaram Sahu [P.W. 02], and robbed them of cash, a motorcycle, and a mobile phone.

Following the investigation, the police recovered various items and conducted Test Identification Parades (TIP) on May 6 and May 20, 2023.

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

The Appellants challenged the conviction, citing flaws in the TIP and recovery procedures.

1. Whether the Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted in accordance with established legal principles to reliably 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 and linked to the crime.

3. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Appellants beyond a reasonable doubt given the discrepancies in ocular and documentary evidence.

The Court applied Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the relevance of facts for identification and Section 27 concerning the discovery of facts based on information received from the accused.

It relied on Gireesan Nair v. State of Kerala (2023) to emphasize that showing the accused to witnesses before a TIP renders the identification inadmissible.

The Court followed Dal Chand v. State and Wahid Bux v. State regarding the necessity of a healthy ratio (at least 1:5) between suspects and non-suspects in a TIP.

Furthermore, it applied Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024) and Raja Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) to hold that mere exhibiting of recovery memos without narrating the sequence of disclosure in court does not amount to proof of contents.

The High Court observed that the TIP was fundamentally flawed as the complainant [P.W. 01] admitted in cross-examination that the police had shown the accused to him prior to the parade, stating they were the involved parties.

Additionally, the ratio of suspects to non-suspects was insufficient, and only one witness out of four participated in the TIP, despite all witnesses being present at the scene.

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

The Investigating Officer [P.W. 14] failed to testify to the "exact statements" made by the accused that led to the discoveries, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The Court also found that the prosecution failed to link the recovered motorcycles and cash to the specific items looted, as engine/chassis numbers did not match the FIR descriptions and the cash amount was too common to be conclusive.

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 the immediate release of the Appellants from custody if not required in any other case.