Identification of unknown accused without a Test Identification Parade warrants acquittal on benefit of doubt.

On October 5, 2011, the applicant (complainant) withdrew ₹70,000 from a bank in Ambikapur.

While returning home, two unknown motorcyclists snatched her handbag containing the cash and fled

An FIR was registered under Section 392/34 of the IPC, leading to the arrest of Respondents 2 and 3 and the alleged recovery of the motorcycle and a portion of the cash

On November 3, 2018, the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) acquitted the accused by granting them the benefit of doubt

This acquittal was upheld by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, on July 30, 2019, on the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and failed to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP)

The applicant filed the present revision petition challenging these concurrent findings of acquittal

1. Whether the concurrent findings of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court suffer from perversity, illegality, or gross misappreciation of evidence warranting interference under revisional jurisdiction?

2. Whether the prosecution established the identity of the accused and the recovery of stolen property beyond reasonable doubt in the absence of a Test Identification Parade and reliable eyewitness testimony?

The court primarily considered Section 392 of the IPC regarding robbery and Section 34 regarding common intention

It applied Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the necessity of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) to establish the identity of unknown accused persons

The court also referenced Section 27 of the Evidence Act regarding the discovery of facts pursuant to memorandum statements

Finally, it applied the settled legal principle that revisional jurisdiction against concurrent findings of acquittal is restricted to cases of perversity or manifest illegality

The High Court observed that the complainant (PW-3) admitted during cross-examination that she had not seen the assailants’ faces because the bag was snatched from behind

This admission rendered her unable to identify the accused or the motorcycle used in the crime

The court noted that the investigation was critically flawed as no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted under Section 9 of the Evidence Act to verify the identity of the arrested persons

Furthermore, the court found the alleged recovery of the motorcycle and cash under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to be doubtful, as seizure witnesses admitted to signing documents at the police station rather than at the place of recovery

Since the prosecution failed to produce any independent eye-witnesses and the existing testimony (PW-2) was deemed hearsay or contradictory, the court held that the essential ingredients of the offence were not established

Consequently, the findings of the lower courts were found to be based on a proper appreciation of evidence rather than perversity

It held that in the absence of a Test Identification Parade or reliable identification by the complainant, the involvement of the accused remained highly doubtful

The court concluded that there was no illegality or material irregularity in the lower courts' decisions to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused

The court directed the transmission of the order and records to the lower court for compliance