The Jharkhand High Court has set aside convictions in a dacoity case where the prosecution failed to establish credible identification of accused persons, highlighting the critical role of procedural integrity and corroboration in eyewitness testimony.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arose from a nighttime dacoity on 16-17 August 1998 at the residence of Bhushan Pathak in Deoghar, Jharkhand. The prosecution alleged that eight to ten armed men broke into the house, shot Bhushan Pathak in the cheek, injured his wife Kanti Devi with a stone, and looted property worth Rs. 15,000. The initial First Information Report named ten unknown persons. The appellants - Bhutka Mian, Firoj Mian, and Israil Mian - were later named only after a belated statement by P.W.1 under Section 164 Cr.P.C., recorded over two months after the incident.
Procedural History
- 17 August 1998: FIR lodged under Section 395 IPC against unknown persons.
- 28 October 1998: P.W.1’s statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., naming the appellants for the first time.
- 1999: Case committed to Sessions Court as Sessions Case No. 57/1999.
- 31 January 2003: Trial Court convicted all three appellants under Sections 395 and 397 IPC, sentencing them to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment each, with concurrent sentences.
- 2026: Appeal heard by the Jharkhand High Court.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought acquittal on grounds of unreliable identification, absence of a Test Identification Parade, contradictory evidence, and failure of the prosecution to recover any stolen property or incriminating material.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether conviction for dacoity under Sections 395 and 397 IPC can be sustained when identification is delayed, uncorroborated, and contradicted by material inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts, and when no Test Identification Parade was conducted despite the opportunity.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Mrs. Snehlika Bhagat, Amicus Curiae, argued that the identification of the appellants was inherently unreliable. She emphasized that the First Information Report named no accused, and the names emerged only after a two-month delay. P.W.1, the victim, was unconscious for two days post-injury and did not disclose the names even to his wife. The Investigating Officer (P.W.4) admitted that the informant refused to attend the Test Identification Parade, rendering the identification process legally defective. The absence of recovered stolen goods, bloodstained clothing, or fired shells further weakened the case. The amicus contended that the conviction was based on suspicion, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor supported the trial court’s finding, asserting that the injury reports corroborated the occurrence of violence and that P.W.1’s identification, though delayed, was credible due to the close proximity during the scuffle. He argued that the delay was explainable due to the victim’s medical condition and that the testimony of P.W.3 and P.W.5 independently supported the prosecution’s version.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a meticulous review of the evidence and found the prosecution’s case riddled with material contradictions and omissions. The testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.3 was fundamentally inconsistent. P.W.1 claimed he was standing and engaged in a five-minute scuffle before being shot, yet P.W.3 stated she found him lying inside the mosquito net with blood on the mattress - suggesting he was shot while asleep. This contradiction fatally undermined the credibility of the identification.
"The incident took place in the dead of night and a sudden act of violence when the entire family members were in a deep slumber reduces the instinct of identification."
The Court noted the Investigating Officer’s failure to seize critical evidence: no bloodstained clothes, no mosquito net, no fired shell, and no bloodstains documented in the diary despite visible blood on the floor. The failure to record the statement of the minor daughter, an eyewitness, and to examine neighbors further indicated a shoddy investigation.
The Court emphasized that Test Identification Parade is not a mere formality but a vital safeguard against false implication, especially in cases involving nighttime identification. The refusal of the informant to participate rendered the identification process legally suspect. The Court also observed that the appellants’ houses were searched but no stolen articles were recovered.
The trial court’s failure to appreciate these contradictions and omissions amounted to a misapplication of the principle of reasonable doubt. The Court held that the prosecution had not discharged its burden under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The Jharkhand High Court acquitted all three appellants, setting aside their convictions and sentences under Sections 395 and 397 IPC. The Court discharged them from their bail bonds and directed payment of Rs. 10,500 to the Amicus Curiae for her assistance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Identification Must Be Immediate and Corroborated
- Practitioners must challenge convictions based on delayed identification unless a credible explanation for the delay is provided and corroborated by independent evidence.
- Courts must scrutinize whether identification occurred under conditions conducive to accurate recall - especially in low-light, high-stress scenarios.
Test Identification Parade Is Mandatory Where Feasible
- Failure to conduct a TIP, especially when the informant refuses to participate, must be treated as a serious procedural defect.
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to explain why a TIP was not held and to demonstrate that the identification was not tainted.
Absence of Recovered Evidence Is Fatal in Property-Based Offences
- In dacoity cases, failure to recover stolen goods, bloodstained clothing, or weapons creates a reasonable doubt that cannot be overcome by oral testimony alone.
- Prosecutors must ensure exhaustive seizure and documentation of physical evidence at the earliest opportunity.
