1 2025:CGHC:44238-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 210 of 2017 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Fingeshwar, District- Gariyaband (CG) ... Appellant versus 1 - Toman @ Lalla Sonwani S/o Kamal Sonwani Aged About 19 Years R/o Satnami Para Nawapara, Rajim, Police Station- Gobra, Nawapara, District- Raipur (CG) 2 - Vikki @ Pintu Satnami S/o Hemlal Aged About 19 Years R/o Near Alpana Talkies, Ward No. 7, Nawapara, Police Station- Gobra Nawapara, District- Raipur (CG) 3 - Lalit Satnami S/o Bagas Satnami Aged About 19 Years R/o Sahupara Kurra, Police Station- Gobra, Nawapara, District- Raipur (CG) 4 - Madhuri Sonwani W/o Toman @ Lalla Aged About 18 Years R/o Sadar Road Ward No. 7, Satnami Para, Nawapara, Police Station Gobra Nawapara, District- Raipur (CG) ---- Respondents For Appellant/State : Shri Ratan Pusty, Government Advocate For Respondents : Shri Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 01.09.2025 Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.09.02 15:11:22 +0530 2 and propriety of the judgment dated 19.10.2016, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband (CG) in Sessions Trial No.61/2014, whereby, the respondents No. 1 to 3, namely, Toman @ Lalla Sonwani, Vikki @ Pintu Satnami and Lalit Satnami have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302, 302/120-B of IPC read with Section 25(1B)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959, while, respondent No.4- Madhuri Sonwani, under Section 302/120-B read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. 2. According to the prosecution, one Manohar Bharti, the father of the deceased, namely, Bhupendra, lodged a merg intimation (Ex.P-17) on 19.08.2014, before the Police Station, Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband, alleging inter alia, that his deceased son, who was Mistri (Mason) by profession, had gone on duty on the previous day night around 8.00 pm and, on the next day morning, i.e. 19.08.2014 around 4.00 am, two persons, namely, Onkar Yadav and Sonu Tarak informed him that on the said fateful day, they were going to Jatmai Ghatarani Temple by his (Bhupendra) motorcycle and, when they reached near Tarrighat Bridge, three unknown persons appeared and stopped them and started assaulting, owing to which, they jumped into the river, where, the deceased was disappeared after some time. Upon receiving the said information, he reached near the place of incident, where he has seen the dead body of his son, who had sustained the injuries on his head and, upon seeing the alleged injury, it was apprehended by him that some unknown persons have assaulted him while using some weapon. Based upon the alleged information, an FIR (Ex.P-36) was registered on 19.08.2014 against three unknown persons for the offence 3 punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is alleged further by the prosecution that at the relevant point of time, the location of the deceased and the said persons (Onkar Yadav and Sonu Tarak) was being given by Madhuri Sonwani, the respondent No.4 herein, to her husband, i.e. respondent No.1- Toman @ Lalla Sonwani by her mobile. She was, thus, alleged to have been involved for the commission of the alleged crime. Inquest of the dead body was made vide Ex.P-2 and, was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. Virendra Hirondia (PW-19), who vide his report (Ex.P-31) has opined that the cause of death of the deceased has occurred due to severe injuries on his head. During the course of further investigation, an iron chapad (slap) with bloodstained was recovered from respondent No.1- Toman @ Lalla Sonwani, vide Ex.P-19, based upon his disclosure statement (Ex.P-3) in presence of two witnesses, namely, Raju Ram Pal (PW-1) and Ghanshyam Sahu (PW-13) and the weapon, so recovered, was sent for chemical examination, where no human blood was, however, found in FSL report (Ex.P-50). 3. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajim, and the matter was thereafter, committed to the concerned trial Court, where based upon the materials available on record, the respondents have been charge- sheeted with regard to the offence mentioned herein-above, which was denied by them and claimed to be tried. 4. From perusal of the record, it, appears that the alleged weapon “iron chapad (slap)”, alleged to have been used for the commission of the alleged crime, was seized from respondent No.1- Toman @ Lalla 4 Sonwani in presence of two witnesses, namely, Raju Ram Pal (PW-1) and Ghanshyam Sahu (PW-13), but, both these witnesses have, however, turned hostile without supporting the alleged seizure from him. Besides, the alleged weapon, which was sent for chemical examination, but, the origin of the blood could not be ascertained owing to its disintegration, as evidenced from the FSL report (Ex.P-50). No reliance, therefore, could be placed upon it. 5. It appears further from the prosecution story that the alleged incident was seen by Onkar Yadav (PW-16) and Sonu Tarak (PW-17) as, they were with the deceased at the relevant point of time, while going to Jatmai Ghatarani Temple by his motorcycle. According to them, they were stopped by three unknown persons and were assaulted by them when they reached the Tarrighat Bridge. They were, thus, not known with the said persons. The Test Identification Parades (Ex.P-11 and Ex.P-12) were, therefore, carried out on 21.08.2014 in their presence, where they identified them. It, however, appears that although, the respondents No. 1 to 3 were identified by them during the course of said identification parade, but, it reveals from their testimonies recorded before the Court that they have already seen them even prior to the alleged ‘Test Identification Parade’. As such, no reliance could be placed upon it in order to attribute the respondents No. 1 to 3 for the commission of the alleged crime. 6. Moreover, a test identification parade under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not substantive evidence in a criminal prosecution but is only corroborative evidence. The purpose of holding a test identification parade during the stage of investigation is, firstly, to 5 ensure that the investigating agency is proceeding in the right direction where the accused is unknown and, secondly, to serve as a corroborative piece of evidence when the witness identifies the accused during trial. The alleged evidence is, thus, a corroborative piece of evidence according to the said provision. 7. The aforesaid observation is fortified by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Rameshwar Singh Vs. State of Jammu And Kashmir, reported in 1971 (2) SCC, 715, where, a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has held at paragraph 6 as under :- “6. Before dealing with the evidence relating to identification of the appellant it may be remembered that the substantive evidence of a witness is his evidence in Court but when the accused person is not previously known to the witness concerned then identification of the accused by the witness soon after the former's arrest is of vital importance because it furnishes to the investigating agency an assurance that the investigation is proceeding on right lines in addition to furnishing corroboration of the evidence to be given by the witness later in court at the trial. From this point of view it is a matter of great importance both for the investigating agency and for the accused and a fortiori for the proper administration of justice that such identification is held without avoidable and unreasonable delay after the arrest of the accused and that all the necessary precautions and safeguards are effectively taken so that the investigation proceeds on correct lines for punishing the real culprit. It would, in addition, be fair to the witness concerned who was a stranger to the accused because in that event the chances of his memory fading are reduced and he is required to identify the alleged culprit at the 6 earliest possible opportunity after the occurrence. It is thus and thus alone that justice and fairplay can be assured both to the accused and to the prosecution. The identification during police investigation, it may be recalled, is not substantive evidence in law and it can only be used for corroborating or contradicting evidence of the witness concerned as given in Court. The identification proceedings, therefore, must be so conducted that evidence with regard to them when given at the trial, enables the court safely to form appropriate judicial opinion about its evidentiary value for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting the statement in court of the identifying witness”. 8. In view of the aforesaid background and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred matter, no reliance, therefore, could be placed upon the alleged Test Identification Parades (Ex.P-11 and Ex.P-12) in order to attribute the respondents for the commission of the alleged crime. 9. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge sunita