The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed a foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence: Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code is not a standalone offence but merely an enhanced punishment provision tied to robbery or dacoity. This clarification, coupled with a rigorous application of the standard for appellate interference in acquittals, reinforces the sanctity of the benefit of doubt in criminal trials.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
On 27 July 2010, the complainant and his wife were subjected to a home invasion by three masked individuals on their terrace. During the assault, the complainant was stabbed in the stomach and chest, and approximately Rs. 10,000 - 12,000 along with a mobile phone were stolen. One assailant’s mask was dislodged during the struggle, allowing the complainant to identify him as the respondent, Anil @ Annu Kandra, a neighbour. The complainant lodged an FIR, and after investigation, the respondent was arrested and charged under Sections 458 and 397 IPC.
Procedural History
- 2010: Incident occurred; FIR registered at Police Station Khairagarh
- 2017: Charge-sheet filed; trial commenced in Sessions Court, Rajnandgaon
- 2018: Learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent of both charges
- 2018: State filed acquittal appeal (ACQA No. 248 of 2018) before the Chhattisgarh High Court
Relief Sought
The State sought reversal of the acquittal and conviction of the respondent under Sections 458 and 397 IPC, arguing that the trial court erred in discrediting prosecution testimony and ignoring corroborative circumstances.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 397 IPC can be charged and punished as a separate substantive offence, and whether the prosecution’s failure to prove identity beyond reasonable doubt warranted acquittal despite identification during T.I.P.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The State contended that the trial court erred in disregarding the testimony of PW-1 (complainant) and PW-2 (his wife), who identified the respondent during Test Identification Parade (Ex.P/2). It argued that the identification was reliable due to prior familiarity as neighbours, and that the six prosecution witnesses collectively established the incident beyond reasonable doubt. The State relied on the principle that minor contradictions in eyewitness accounts do not invalidate the entire case, citing State of U.P. v. Krishna.
For the Respondent
The defence maintained that the prosecution failed to establish the respondent’s presence at the scene, as both complainant and his wife admitted during cross-examination that the assailants’ faces were concealed at the time of the incident. The identification during T.I.P. was challenged as unreliable due to the delay of over seven years between the incident and the parade. Further, the defence highlighted that PW-3 to PW-6 either gave inconsistent testimony or were declared hostile, undermining the prosecution’s case.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a two-pronged analysis: first, on the legal validity of charging Section 397 IPC as a separate offence; second, on the sufficiency of evidence to overturn the acquittal.
On the first point, the Court relied on the binding precedent from Kallu @ Ramkumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which held that Section 397 IPC is not a substantive offence but only enhances punishment for robbery or dacoity. The trial court’s error in framing a separate charge under Section 397 IPC was therefore legally unsustainable. The Court observed:
"Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the enhanced punishment only. It is not a substantive offence. The substantive offence may be robbery or dacoity. In this case, the substantive offence as proved, is dacoity and, therefore, there ought to have been only one sentence."
On the second point, the Court applied the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, emphasizing that appellate courts must not substitute their own view for that of the trial court unless there is perversity, illegality, or a clear error of law. The trial court had meticulously noted the contradictions in witness statements, the delay in identification, and the hostile nature of key witnesses. The High Court found this assessment to be a legally plausible view.
The Court further noted that the prosecution’s case hinged entirely on the identification of the respondent, which was rendered doubtful by the admission that the assailants wore masks and the absence of independent corroboration. The failure to prove identity beyond reasonable doubt rendered the conviction unsustainable.
The Verdict
The State’s appeal was dismissed. The Court upheld the acquittal, holding that Section 397 IPC cannot be charged as a separate offence and that the prosecution failed to prove the respondent’s involvement beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court’s decision was neither perverse nor illegal.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Section 397 IPC Is Not a Standalone Charge
- Practitioners must ensure that charges under Section 397 IPC are always framed in conjunction with Section 395 (dacoity) or Section 392 (robbery)
- A separate charge under Section 397 IPC without a substantive charge under Section 392/395 is legally invalid and grounds for acquittal
- Prosecutors must avoid drafting charge sheets that treat enhancement provisions as independent offences
Identification Evidence Requires Corroboration in Masked Assaults
- When assailants wear masks, identification by a single eyewitness - even if known to the victim - is insufficient without corroborative evidence
- Delayed Test Identification Parades (T.I.P.) must be scrutinized for reliability; courts will weigh the time gap and opportunity for misidentification
- Hostile witnesses and contradictions in testimony must be addressed explicitly by trial courts; appellate courts will not interfere unless the reasoning is patently flawed
Benefit of Doubt Prevails in Absence of Conclusive Proof
- The Mallappa principles now serve as a mandatory checklist for appellate courts reviewing acquittals
- Mere possibility of guilt is not enough; the appellate court must find the trial court’s reasoning legally untenable
- Prosecution must meet the high threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases relying on eyewitness testimony under adverse conditions
