1 2026:CGHC:20609 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 20 of 2008 Digambar Lal Satnami S/o Paras Ram Satnami, aged about 30 years, Occupation – Labour, R/o Village Parasadeeh, P.S.-Jaijaipur, Distt.- Janjgir-Champa, C.G. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Kotra Road, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (CG) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board (04th May, 2026) The appellant in this appeal calls in question the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.12.2007 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Raigarh in 2 ST No.52/2006 whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 398 of Indian Penal Code. RI for 07 years Under Section 427 of Indian Penal Code. RI for 02 years Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.11.2005 complainant Peela Dau, Incharge Branch Manager of Rural Bank, Branch-Nandeli, was working in the bank and at that time cashier Jitendra Dubey, Manoj Shrivastava and messenger Ganesh Ram Sidar were also on duty. At around 1.30 pm, three persons entered the bank and closed the door and window of the bank. They demanded money on the point of country made pistol and looted the money kept in the drawer of the cash counter. They confined them in the record room. At that time, postman Uttara Kumar arrived there and he was also confined in the said room. Thereafter, the accused persons fled from there on motorcycle. At the time of dacoity, three other dacoits were standing outside. The accused persons looted Rs.1,11,520/-, one calculator and stapler. On report being lodged by Peela Dau Sidar, offence under Section 395 of IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act was registered. After completing usual investigation, the police filed 3 charge sheet against the accused persons showing the co-accused Suraj Sharma absconding. 03. Learned trial Court framed charges under Section 398, 398/34 & 427 of IPC, Section 25(1)(A) & 27 of the Arms Act against the accused persons which were abjured by them and they prayed for trial. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 17 witnesses in all. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court while acquitting the co-accused of all the charges and the appellant of the charges under the Arms Act, convicted the appellant u/s 398 and 427 of IPC and sentenced as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 05. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. In this case, the identification of the accused/appellant is doubtful. From the deposition of the witnesses it is clear that they identified the appellant on the basis of his photograph published in the newspaper. PW-10 Neelam Toppo, Naib Tehsildar, admits that when he 4 carried out the written proceedings at Kotara Road Police Station, the suspected persons were present in the lock-up room of the Kotara Road Police Station and the persons brought for identification and the identifying witnesses were also present in the police station. In this case, PW-3 Vijay Kumar and PW-8 Manuram Shrivas, witnesses to seizure, have not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. He submits that on the same set of evidence, the other co-accused persons have been acquitted of all the charges by learned trial Court. From the evidence on record it is clear that test identification parade has not been conducted in accordance with law. Nothing incriminating has been seized from the possession of the accused/appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment holding the appellant guilty under Sections 398 & 427 of IPC is liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the judgment dated 7.4.2026 of this Court in CRA No.39/2008 in the matter of Vijay Kumar Chauhan and another Vs. State of CG and judgment dated 9.4.2026 in CRA No.968/2008 in the matter of Kaila Vs State of CG. 06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellant would submit that in view of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. The present appeal being without any substance is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 5 07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 08. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the accused persons were charged under Sections 398, 398/34 & 427 of IPC, Section 25(1)(A) & 27 of the Arms Act and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court while acquitting the co- accused of all the charges and the appellant of the charges under the Arms Act, convicted the appellant u/s 398 and 427 of IPC and sentenced as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 09. PW-2 Peela Dau Sidar, complainant, states that on 16.11.2005 while he was working in the bank as Incharge Branch Manager, three persons entered the bank and demanded money on the point of country made pistol. At that time, Manoj Shrivastava, Jitendra Dubey, Ganesh Ram and one Ishwari Lal were there in the bank. Two of the dacoits looted the entire amount kept in the drawer. He states that the dacoits confined them in a room and after looting the money they fled from there on motorcycle. He states that they were six in number and fled from the spot on two motorcycles. They looted Rs.1,11,520/-, one calculator and stapler. He states that he lodged Dehati Nalishi of Ex.P/2 which bears his signature from A to A part. He states that he identified five persons in the TIP conducted by Tehsildar and admits his signature on the identification memo of Ex.P/4 from A to A part. 6 10. In para 17 of his cross-examination he admits the suggestion of defence that they saw both the motorcycles from behind, he does not know as to who was riding the motorcycle and who was sitting as pillion rider. He admits that he does not know three of those six persons because only three persons had entered the bank. In para 18 he admits that यह सह ह कि अगले ए- दो दिदोनों भीतर जो पड़ाए उनों फोटो सकिहत समाचार इनों अखबार मा! छप थे। यह सह ह कि इनों अखबार  मा%नों भी दोख पढ़ा थे। यह सह ह कि इस  आधार पर मा)झे यह जोनोंर ह गई थे कि दो अभिभीय)क्त पड़ा चा) ह%। In para 21 he admits that there is no basis for identifying five persons in place of three persons in the test identification parade. In para 27 again he admits that photographs of the accused whom he identified were published in the newspaper and on that basis he identified the accused. 11. PW-3 Vijay Kumar has not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined where he only admitted his signature on the documents of Ex.P/5, P/6 & P/7. 12. PW-4 Jitendra Dubey, cashier, states that three persons entered the bank and looted Rs.1,11,520/- from the cash counter on the point of country made pistol and thereafter, locked them in a room and fled from there on motorcycles. He identified five persons in TIP as per Ex.P/10 which bears his signature from A to A part. In para 6 of his cross-examination he states that on the date of incident he saw only three persons. In para 7 he admits that photo of 7 the bank was published in the newspaper. He denies that he saw photo of the accused in the newspaper. He admits that he saw the persons caught by the police in Sardamal also. He admits that he identified the persons whom he saw in Sardamal. 13. PW-10 Neelam Toppo, Naib Tehsildar, states that he conducted TIP of the accused persons and prepared TIP Memo Ex.P/4, P/24, P/25 and P/11. In para 8 of his cross-examination he admits that when he carried out the written proceedings at Kotara Road Police Station, the suspected persons were present in the lock-up room of the Kotara Road Police Station. At the time when he conducted the said written proceedings at the police station, the persons brought for identification and the identifying witnesses were also present in the police station. He admits that in Ex. P-4, P-10, P-11, P-24, and P-25, the signatures of the suspected persons and the persons brought for identification were not taken by him. He admits that the persons mentioned in Ex.P-4, P- 10, P-11, P-24, and P-25 as identifying witnesses and those to be identified were not called by him but they had been called by the police. In para 10 he denies the suggestion that the entire identification proceedings were conducted by him in the police station in presence of the police. However, in his previous statement he admits the suggestion of defence that all the accused persons were present in the 8 police station when he carried out the written proceedings of identification. 14. PW-3 Vijay Kumar and PW-8 Manuram Shrivas, witnesses to seizure, have not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. 15. Learned trial Court in para 33 of the impugned judgment observed that the prosecution has failed to prove offence under the Arms Act against the accused persons and thus acquitted them of the said charge. However, while acquitting the co-accused persons of all the charges, learned trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 398 and 427 of IPC on the basis of his identification in the TIP. 16. It is well settled that if the evidence on record reveals that the accused was shown to the witness prior to TIP, such identification loses its significance and sanctity of TIP before the Court is doubtful. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gireesan Nair and others Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2023) 1 SCC 180 held in paras 28 & 29 of its judgment as under: "28. 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 9 media (newspapers, television etc.), the evidence of the TIP is not admissible as a valid piece of evidence (Lal Singh and Ors v. State of U.P., (2003) 12 SCC 554 and Suryamoorthi and Anr. v. Govindaswamy and Ors., (1989) 3 SCC 24). 29. 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 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 Chhattisgarh, (2020) 10 SCC 733 and Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay, (1955) 1 SCR 903)." 17. In the case in hand, the core foundation of the prosecution case —identification of the accused—is highly doubtful and unreliable. The evidence clearly establishes that the witnesses had seen photographs of the accused published in newspapers prior to the Test Identification Parade (TIP). PW-2 (complainant) has categorically admitted in cross- examination that he saw newspaper reports containing photographs of the arrested accused and, on that basis, came to know about their arrest. He further admitted that his identification of the accused was influenced by those photographs. This completely vitiates the evidentiary value of the TIP, as prior exposure destroys the sanctity of identification proceedings. Further, the TIP itself was not conducted in 10 accordance with established legal principles. PW-10 (Naib Tehsildar), who conducted the TIP, admitted that the accused persons were already present in the police station lock-up, the identifying witnesses and suspects were present in the same police station at the same time; the witnesses and suspects were not independently summoned by him, but were brought by the police, and that signatures of the suspects and identifying witnesses were not obtained on the relevant memos. These admissions clearly show that the TIP was conducted in a highly irregular and unsafe manner, under the influence and control of the police, thereby rendering it wholly unreliable. 18. Apart from the above, material contradictions and inconsistencies further weaken the prosecution case. The incident involved three assailants inside the bank, yet witnesses identified five persons in the TIP, which PW-2 himself admits has no basis. PW-4 admitted identifying the persons whom they had seen earlier in police custody (Sardamal), not at the time of the incident. Further, key seizure witnesses (PW-3 and PW-8) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. In this case, no incriminating article was recovered from the possession of the appellant, and there is no independent corroborative evidence linking him to the crime. It is also significant that co-accused persons were acquitted on the same set of evidence, yet the appellant alone was convicted without any distinguishing or stronger evidence against him. In criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the 11 present case, the evidence suffers from serious infirmities, procedural lapses, and lack of credibility. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, he is entitled to be acquitted of the charges by giving him benefit of doubt. 19. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment, insofar as it relates to conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 398 and 427 of IPC, is hereby set aside. He is acquitted of the said charges. He is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 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. A copy of this judgment be also forwarded to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary action. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2026.05.05 15:16:07 +0530