1 2025:CGHC:49563-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.3 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Bhansi, District South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.). ... Appellant versus 1 - Sumesh Kerketta @ Dongro S/o Chhannulal Kerketta, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Bhathupara, Police Chowki Manipur, Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). 2 - Tat Rajak S/o Janghu Rajak, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Bhathupara, Police Chowki Manipur, Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Shri Arpit Agrawal, Panel Lawyer For Respondent(s) : None, though served. DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J 06/10/2025 1) This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 27.06.2017, passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.119/2015, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506 Part-II and 307, read with Section 34 of IPC. SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2025.10.07 17:39:25 +0530 2 2) It is alleged by the prosecution that on 29.08.2015 in the night around 10 P.M., the complainant-Abhimanyu Singh and his friend Rajkumar Das went to the house of Renuka Manikpuri, who was his (Rajkumar Das) sister, at village Bhathupara to celebrate the festival of Rakhi and while returning home at village Sattipara by the motorcycle and, as soon as when they reached near the pond of Bhathupara Ring Road, two unknown persons, going ahead of them, were not giving the side, therefore, the complainant stopped them and asked as to why you are not giving the side, owing to which, they got annoyed and started abusing with filthy words and assaulted on the head of Rajkumar Das by a wooden club, as a result of which, he fell down and sustained injuries. It is alleged further that the incident was informed to Rajkumar’s sister, namely, Renuka Manikpuri and her husband- Pardesi, who then lodged the First Information Report (Exs.P-22 and P- 23) on 30.08.2015 before the Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja against the unknown persons for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC in connection with Crime No.460/2015. During the course of investigation, a wooden club was seized from the respondent no.1-Sumesh Kerketta @ Dongro, vide Ex.P-8 on 11.09.2015 in presence of two witnesses, namely, Pardesi Manikpuri and Abhimanyu Singh and, the Test Identification Parade was conducted on 11.09.2015 vide Ex.P-5 by the Executive Magistrate/Naib Tehsildar, Ambikapur in presence of two witnesses, namely, Basant Yadav and Dharamdas Manikpuri and, after completion of usual investigation, the charge sheet was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur against the respondents for the alleged offence and the matter was, thereafter, committed to the trial Court, 3 where on the basis of materials available on record, the charge was framed against them for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 506 Part-II and 307 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC, which was denied by them and claimed to be tried. 3) The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that none of the prosecution witnesses have identified the involvement of the respondents for commission of the alleged crime and accordingly, they have been acquitted and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 4) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State submits that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding that the respondents are not involved in connection with the alleged crime, are apparently contrary to the materials available on record, inasmuch as, the evidence led by the prosecution, have not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby erred in acquitting them as such. While inviting attention towards the statement of Basant Yadav (PW-2) and Dharam Das Manikpuri (PW-11), in whose presence, the Test Identification Parade (Ex.P-5) was conducted, it was contended that they have identified the respondents specifically in presence of the Executive Magistrate, however, while misinterpreting the statement of theirs, the trial Court has erred in acquitting them as such. 5) No one appears on behalf of the respondents, despite service of notice. 6) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State and perused the entire papers carefully. 7) From perusal of the record, it appears that on 29.08.2015, when the complainant-Abhimanyu Singh and his friend-Rajkumar Das were 4 returning home after celebrating the festival of Rakhi, a quarrel took place near the pond of Bhathupara Ring Road with the respondents, where one of them has assaulted Rajkumar Das with the aid of wooden club and, the respondents have, thus, been charge-sheeted for the offence mentioned hereinabove. Perusal of the record would show that at the time of lodging an FIR by the complainant- Abhimanyu Singh, alongwith Rajkumar Das and Renuka Manikpuri, the alleged offence was registered against unknown persons and, a Test Identification Parade (Ex.P-5) was, therefore, conducted on 11.09.2015 and, a bare perusal of it would reveal the fact that the respondents have been identified by Basant Yadav (PW-2) and Dharamdas Manikpuri (PW-11), but both these witnesses have, however, turned hostile without supporting the same. Even, Abhimanyu Singh, the complainant, who was present and also identified the respondents, has stated at paragraph 8 of his testimony that he has seen the respondents for the first time before the Court. No reliance, therefore, could be placed upon it. 8) Even otherwise, 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 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. 9) The aforesaid observation is fortified by the principles laid down by the 5 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 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”. 6 10) That apart, it reveals further from the testimonies of Pardeshi (PW-4) and his wife-Renuka Manikpuri (PW-5) that during inquiry near the place of incident, it was informed by one Munna Gond (PW-8) that the respondents have assaulted the complainant-Abhimanyu Singh and said Rajkumar, but, said Munna Gond (PW-8) has, however, turned hostile without supporting the alleged of their versions. Therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant-Abhimanyu Singh and his friend- Rajkumar were assaulted by the respondents on the said fateful day, as alleged by the prosecution. 11) In view of the aforesaid background, the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any illegality in acquitting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime, so as to call for any interference in this appeal. 12) The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge SD/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal ) Judge Tumane