Uncorroborated voice identification by an unexamined informant cannot sustain conviction for dacoity.

On the night of 20/21 May 1995, a group of armed persons allegedly entered the labour quarters at Jiyajore Mission, threatened the occupants with firearms and weapons, and looted approximately ₹9,100 and three HMT watches.

The informant, Raja Soren, allegedly identified the appellant, a former mason at the Mission, by his voice during the occurrence and subsequently named him in the first information report.

After investigation, the appellant was charged under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted by the learned 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dumka, who sentenced him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹3,000.

During trial, eight prosecution witnesses were examined; however, the informant was not examined, several witnesses were hostile or did not identify the appellant, and no stolen property was recovered from him.

The Court applied Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalises dacoity and requires proof connecting the accused with the commission of the offence.

The prosecution must establish the accused’s identity and guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Voice identification, particularly when the identifying witness is not examined and the identification is merely reported by other witnesses, is inherently weak and cannot, without reliable corroboration, constitute a sufficient basis for conviction for a serious offence.

The benefit of reasonable doubt must be extended to the accused where the evidence does not satisfactorily establish his participation.

Although the occurrence of dacoity was supported by the evidence of several witnesses, the Court found that the evidence did not reliably establish the appellant’s identity as one of the dacoits.

The alleged identification was principally based on the informant’s recognition of the appellant’s voice, but the informant himself was not examined at trial.

The other witnesses were acquainted with the appellant because he had previously worked with them, and the record disclosed a wage-related dispute that supplied a possible motive for false implication.

Some witnesses were hostile or did not identify the appellant, and no robbed money or watches were recovered from his possession.

Consequently, the prosecution evidence concerning identity was treated as weak and insufficient to prove the charge under Section 395 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

Extending the benefit of reasonable doubt, the Court acquitted the appellant, set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21 September 2006, allowed the appeal, and discharged him from the liability of his bail bond; the sureties were also discharged.