1 2025:CGHC:56797 NAFR The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 25.08.2025 21.11.2025 -- .11.2025 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on: 25.08.2025 Judgment delivered on : 21.11.2025 CRA No. 152 of 2007 1 - Chhote Lal S/o Sukul Pando Aged About 20 Years Village-Jilibandh, P.S. Khadgawan, District-Koriya (C.G.) 2 - Chhakke Lal S/o Sukul Pando Aged About 25 Years Village- Jilibandh, P.S. Khadgawan, District-Koriya (C.G.) 3 - Sukhiram S/o Sukul Pando Aged About 27 Years Village-Jilibandh, P.S. Khadgawan, District-Koriya (C.G.) 4 - Sukhnandan @ Bhodal S/o Kanhai Pando Aged About 19 Years Village-Jilibandh, P.S. Khadagawan, Distt-Koriya (C.G.) 5 - Ransai S/o Somar Sai Aged About 24 Years Village- Badar Narkeli, P.S. Patna, District- Koriya(C.G.) 2 ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through: Station House Officer, Police Station- Khadgawa, District- Korea (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Ms. Savita Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. N.K. Kashyap, P.L. Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C A V Judgment 1. The present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.12.2006 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 129/2006, whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 450 of IPC R.I for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 3 months ( Each of the appellants) Under Section 395 of IPC R.I for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 3 months ( Each of the appellants) Under Section 398 of IPC R.I for 7 years ( Each of the appellants) 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant- Dirpal, 3 resides in Village Ganeshpur and works as a farmer. He also runs a grocery shop from his residence. In the night intervening 11.04.2006–12.04.2006, at about 1:30–2:00 a.m., while he was sleeping in his house, some unidentified persons allegedly opened the door and entered the courtyard armed with swords. They inquired as to whether he had kept money in the house. When the complainant woke up, one of the assailants attempted to strike him with an axe, but he caught hold of the axe handle. Thereafter, another assailant tried to assault him near the neck with a sword. All four persons then forcefully took him to the courtyard and, while threatening to kill him, allegedly committed dacoity and looted Rs.3,500/- in cash and other household articles. The complainant lodged a report of the incident at Police Station Khadgawa the following morning. On the basis of his report, a crime was registered at Police Station Khadgawa and investigation was undertaken. During investigation, the police inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared a site map. During interrogation, the accused persons confessed to having taken the aforementioned items from the complainant’s house during the robbery. Accordingly, their memorandum statements were recorded and on the basis of their disclosure statements, the said stolen property was seized. During the identification proceedings conducted in the presence of witnesses, the complainant and his wife identified the seized articles as belonging to them and also identified the accused 4 persons as those who had committed the offence. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and, upon completion of investigation and finding sufficient material against the accused persons, a charge sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Manendragarh, on 18.05.2006. The learned trial Court framed charges for the offence punishable under Sections 450, 395 and 398 of IPC, to which the appellants abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, in their defence, no evidence was adduced by them. 4. Learned trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 29.12.2006 finding evidence adduced by the prosecution trustworthy, convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution case is doubtful and suffers from material inconsistencies. It is urged that the incident allegedly occurred between 1:30–2:00 a.m., when visibility was extremely poor, yet the complainant and 5 his wife claim to have identified the assailants both at the spot and during the Test Identification Parade, which renders the identification wholly unreliable. It is further submitted that the prosecution has placed undue reliance on the memorandum statements recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, though the alleged recovery of household articles is neither independently proved nor shown to bear any distinctive marks linking them to the complainant. The seizure witnesses have also not supported the prosecution version. It is argued that no weapon used in the offence has been recovered, nor is there any medical evidence to corroborate the alleged assault with an axe or sword. The discrepancy regarding the lodging of the FIR at Police Station Bargarhi while the crime was registered at Police Station Khadgawa also casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution case. Lastly, it is submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 450, 395 and 398 IPC, and in the absence of any reliable or legally admissible evidence connecting the appellants with the alleged incident, they are entitled to acquittal by benefit of doubt. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chunthuram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2020) 10 SCC 733 and Girresan Nair & others Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2023) 1 SCC 180. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the judgment 6 of the trial Court and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that the complainant and his wife had sufficient opportunity to see the assailants during the incident, and their identification at the spot as well as in the Test Identification Parade is consistent, reliable, and inspires confidence. The recovery of stolen articles pursuant to the memorandum statements of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is duly proved, and the complainant and his wife have correctly identified the seized property as belonging to them. It is further submitted that minor discrepancies regarding the FIR or the absence of recovery of weapons do not demolish the prosecution case, especially when the complainant’s version of the incident stands fully corroborated by the identification proceedings and the recovery of stolen property. Lastly, it is contended that all essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 450, 395 and 398 IPC are clearly established on record, and the conviction recorded by the trial Court is well-justified. Therefore, no ground exists for granting the appellants the benefit of doubt, and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is evident from the record of the learned trial Court that charges under Sections 450, 395 and 398 of the IPC were framed against the appellants and upon appreciation of the oral and documentary 7 evidence on record, the learned trial Court proceeded to convict the appellants for the said offences. 9. The complainant, Dirpal Singh (P.W.-1) deposed that on the date of the incident, while he was sleeping in his house at midnight, 3– 4 unknown persons entered the premises and demanded money from him. He stated that all the assailants had covered their faces with cloth. He accordingly handed over a bag containing Rs. 2,700/-, and the assailants also took away other household articles. Thereafter, he lodged the First Information Report at the concerned police station, which was registered vide Ex.P/1. During the Test Identification Parade, he identified all the accused persons vide Ex.P/2. The identification of the looted articles was proved through Ex.P/3 and Ex.P/4. In para 27 of his cross-examination, he stated that when the police arrested the accused persons, he was summoned to the police station, where the accused were shown to him. He further stated that upon reaching the police station, he informed the police that the thieves had covered their faces with cloth at the time of the incident, and therefore he could not recognize them unless their faces were uncovered. He denied the suggestion that the police had told him that if he failed to identify the thieves, his case would not be registered. He added that when the arrested accused were shown to him at the police station, he told the police that, as the incident had occurred during the night and due to the 8 darkness, he was doubtful about identifying them. He stated that he did not remember whether he had signed any document at the police station. 10. Ramkali (P.W.-2) supported the statement of her husband i.e. complainant (P.W.-1) and stated that the robbers had taken cash, rice, pulses, grocery items from the shop, as well as clothes from the house. They had also taken her jewellery, including a hasli and hand-cuffs, from the residence. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she had not been able to recognize the people who entered her house, as their faces had been covered with cloth. Further, in paragraph 19, she admitted that the thieves who had entered her house, had covered their faces with cloth. 11. Ramnarayan (P.W.–3) stated that on the date of the incident, while he was sleeping in his house at around 2:00 a.m., the complainant, Dirpal, along with his neighbour, came to his house and informed him about the robbery, stating that the robbers had taken grocery items, jewellery, and other articles from his residence. He further stated that the complainant had recognized the dacoits at the time of the incident. He next stated that the police had recorded the memorandum statement of the accused and that the memorandum statement of accused Sukhiram was documented vide Ex.P/6, while his seizure memo was prepared as Ex.P/7. 9 In his cross-examination, he admitted that the statement he had made in Court regarding the villagers informing him about the incident had not been disclosed by him to the police in his statement. Further he admitted that the articles such as mahua, a blanket, cloth, a pot, a plate, and other similar items recovered from the house of the dacoits, were commonly found in every household, including his own. 12. Ramsay (P.W.– 4) admitted his signature from B to B part of the memorandum statement of accused Sukhiram (Ex.P/6), as well as on the seizure memo (Ex.P/7). In his cross-examination, he admitted that the police had not interrogated the accused in his presence, and that Sukhiram had also not given any statement to the police in his presence. 13.Jaipal Singh (P.W.-6) stated that the police had recorded the memorandum statements of the accused vide Ex.P/8, P/9, P/10, P/11 and P/12 in his presence, and that thereafter, as per the seizure memos vide Ex.P/13, P/14, P/15, P/16 and P/17, the articles were seized. In his cross-examination, he admitted that they had signed at the police station. He further admitted that he could not, on that day, specify as to what statements each of the accused had given. He also stated that the grocery items are commonly found in every household. Further he admitted that he could not say as to which items had been seized from which accused. He clarified 10 that they had not gone to the accused persons’ houses and had instead been sitting under a tree, where the police completed the paperwork. 14. Ramgulam (P.W.-7) stated that on the date of the incident, at around 2:00 a.m., while he was sleeping in his house, the complainant Dirpal had come to his house and informed him that a robbery had been committed in his house. 15. G. R. Rathore (P.W.-8) stated that he had conducted the Test Identification Parade of the accused persons and admitted his signature on the identification memo (Ex.P/5). 16. In the matter of Gireesan Nair (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court held in paras 31 and 32 as under:- “31. In cases where the witnesses have had ample opportunity to see the accused before the identification parade is held, it may adversely affect the trial. It is the duty of the prosecution to establish before the court that right from the day of arrest, the accused was kept "baparda" to rule out the possibility of their face, being seen while in police custody. If the witnesses had the opportunity to see the accused before the TIP, be it in any form i.e. physically, through photographs or via media (newspapers, television, etc.), the evidence of the TIP is not admissible as a valid piece of evidence (Lal Singh v. State of U.P. [(2003) 12 SCC 554] and Suryamoorthi v. Govindaswamy [(1989) 3 SCC 24]). 32. If identification in the TIP has taken place after the accused is shown to the witnesses, then not only is the evidence of TIP inadmissible, even an identification in a court during trial is meaningless (Sk. Umar Ahmed Shaikh 11 v. State of Maharashtra [(1998) 5 SCC 103]). Even a TIP conducted in the presence of a police officer is inadmissible in light of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Chunthuram v. State of Chhattigarh [(2020) 10 SCC 733]) and Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay [(1955) 1 SCR 903].” 17. Having carefully considered the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the evidentiary inconsistencies, and the legal principles governing Test Identification Parade (TIP), this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish the identity of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The material on record clearly demonstrates that the complainant (P.W.-1) and other witnesses had repeatedly stated that the assailants had covered their faces with cloth at the time of the incident. In their cross-examinations, Complainant Dirpal Singh (P.W.-1) and Ramkali (P.W.-2) categorically admitted that they had been unable to recognize the perpetrators due to the darkness and the covered faces. 18. The record further reveals that the accused persons were shown to the complainant at the police station prior to the TIP. Dirpal Singh (P.W.-1) specifically admitted that after the arrest, the police had summoned him to the police station and the accused were shown to him there. This admission directly strikes at the root of the prosecution’s case, as such prior exposure renders the subsequent TIP wholly inadmissible and devoid of evidentiary value. 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gireesan Nair (supra), at paras 12 31 and 32, has categorically held that if the accused is shown to the witness before conducting the TIP, the entire TIP becomes unreliable, and even the in-court identification loses its probative value. The Apex Court has further emphasized the obligation of the prosecution to maintain the accused in “baparda” from the moment of arrest until the TIP is conducted. No such compliance is demonstrated in the present case, nor has the prosecution led any evidence to show that the accused were kept “baparda”. 20. The evidence relating to recovery is also unreliable. Independent witnesses Ramnarayan (P.W.-3) and Jaipal Singh (P.W.-6) admitted that the articles allegedly recovered from the accused persons’ houses were common household items found in every home. It is further admitted that the witnesses did not accompany the police to the place of recovery and had signed the memos at the police station or while sitting under a tree, thereby casting serious doubt on the genuineness of the recoveries. These admissions erode the credibility of the memorandum and seizure proceedings under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 21. Considering the cumulative effect of these infirmities—non- establishment of identity, inadmissibility of the TIP, doubtful recoveries, and contradictions in the prosecution evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution has not discharged its burden of proving the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 22. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment 13 dated 29.12.2006 is hereby set aside. The conviction of the appellants under Sections 450, 395 and 398 of the IPC, as recorded by the learned trial Court, is quashed. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. 23. The appellants are reported to be on bail, therefore, keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellants are directed to furnish personal bonds for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with two reliable sureties in the like amount before the Court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 24. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE Ruchi RUCHI YADAV Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV