First-time in-court identification cannot sustain conviction when the witness never saw the accused and no TIP was held.

The prosecution alleged that the victim, an employee of Tata Finance, was abducted on 25 December 2014 and held for ransom.

The informant’s written report named no accused; the formal FIR was registered on 23 September 2015, after the case had been transferred following a jurisdictional issue.

The victim testified that he had been blindfolded and that one of the abductors, whom he identified in court as Anil Pal, took money from him.

He also stated that he had not seen the accused before and had no prior relationship with them.

No test identification parade (TIP) was conducted.

The Sessions Court convicted both appellants under Sections 364A/34 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for the remainder of their natural lives.

They appealed, challenging, among other matters, the lack of identification evidence and the delay in lodging the FIR.

1. Whether the appellants’ identities and involvement were proved beyond reasonable doubt where the victim was blindfolded, no TIP was held, and the accused were not named in the FIR.

2. Whether the discrepancy between the ransom amount stated in the FIR and the victim’s testimony, together with the delayed registration of the FIR, undermined the prosecution case.

The Court considered Sections 364A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, under which the appellants had been convicted.

Although an FIR is not an encyclopaedia, the first version and any description or identification of an accused may assume particular importance where the accused is identified for the first time in court and no TIP has been conducted.

The Court further treated reliable identification and proof beyond reasonable doubt as necessary to sustain the convictions; it cited no specific precedent.

The victim was blindfolded during the abduction and admitted that he had neither seen the appellants before nor known them; no TIP was held to test his identification.

The Court therefore found that the in-court identification was not sufficient, in the circumstances, to establish the appellants’ identities.

It also noted that the FIR recorded a ransom demand of ₹5 lakh, while the victim testified to a demand of ₹10 lakh.

Although the FIR was registered about nine months after the occurrence, the Court attributed the delay to the investigation and transfer of the case following a jurisdictional dispute and found no prejudice to the accused on that account.

In the absence of reliable identification, the convictions could not be sustained.

It directed that Anil Pal be released forthwith if not required in another case, and discharged Pintu Soni and his bailers from their bail-bond liabilities.