Conviction for dacoity with a dangerous weapon rested on TIP identification and recoveries. The court found the TIP flawed—witnesses inconsistent on numbers and age-mixing, accused never shown to the victim—and no FSL report or cash identification to support recoveries, giving benefit of doubt.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 197 of 2003
Judgment reserved on 27/03/2024 Judgment passed on 15/06/2024
| Sanju @ Vikesh Kumar, S/o Firtu Ram, aged about 19 years, Resident of village Kurud, P.S. Jamul, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent CRA No. 240 of 2003 |
|---|
| Govind S/o. Shanker Rao, aged about 19 years, Resident of village Kurud, P.S. Jamul, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant |
| Versus |
| State of Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent |
For Appellants : Mr. Shiv Shankar Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Deputy A.G. ________ |
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
C.A.V. Order
2
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Sessions Trial No. 15/1997, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 395 read with Section 397 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them R.I. for 7 years.
3
Santosh vide seizure memo Ex.P/11. From the accused Mohan Choti cash of Rs.5000/- has also been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/8 and cash of Rs.850/- has been seized from the accused Santosh Kumar vide seizure memo Ex.P/18.
4
Pradeep Kumar and Masooq Ali have duly identified the accused persons. The statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the witnesses have been recorded, seized the medical treatment documents from the hospital and after completion of usual investigation charge-sheet was filed before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg. The case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Durg from where it has been transferred to the learned trial Court for its trial.
5
paragraph of this judgment, whereas the accused Santosh, Shashi Kumar and Uttam Kumar have been acquitted from the alleged offences. Hence, this appeal.
6
by the victim as well as the complainant. The memorandum statement and based on it the recovery of weapon and cash amount hae also been proved, which has rightly been considered by the learned trial Court and has convicted the appellants, which needs no interference and their appeals are liable to be dismissed.
7
not specify as to what was the denominations of his currency notes and what was its quantity, but the accused persons have looted Rs.10,000/- and Rs.700-800/-. He further stated that he informed the police that one accused wore the red shirt and black full pant. The police has not called him for identification of the accused persons. He further stated that the accused Mohan, Sanju and Govind have assaulted him and the other accused persons were threatening his companions. He further stated that he disclosed before the police that Mohan, Sanju and Govind have assaulted him and other accused persons threatened his companions in his police statement Ex.D/1, but if it is not there in his police statement, he could not know the reason. He admitted in para 14 of his deposition that who looted the cash amount from him, he could not tell. When the intensity of the effect of chili powder was getting down, then he could see that his amount was being looted. The intensity of chili powder is getting down and then he could see, was disclosed in his police station Ex.D/1, but if it is not written in it, he could not tell the reason.
8
persons have made assault on Khushiyal Ahmad. The other accused persons have assaulted his elder brother. Khushiyal Ahmad has received number of injuries on his body, the accused persons looted the amount of Rs.10,000-11,000/- and fled away. The incident was reported by him to the police vide Ex.P/1. The accused persons were put before him for TIP (test identification parade), which was conducted at Slaughter House, Supela. Out of 20-22 persons, he identified the 05 accused persons including Sanju, Mohan, Uttam, Santosh and Govind. In his cross-examination, he stated that up to the time of lodging of the F.I.R. he was not known the name of the victim Khushiyal Ahmad. Just before lodging of the report, he came to know the name of Khushiyal Ahmad. He shown his ignorance that in the F.I.R., he disclosed that one accused has assaulted his head and further stated that he disclosed before the police that the accused persons have looted Rs.10,000-11,000/- cash. He further stated that at the time of TIP, except the accused persons, how many other persons were present, he could not tell. He further stated that at the time of TIP, 30 other persons were there, but he could not tell their age as to whether they are aged about 40-45 years or not. At the time of TIP, the persons of lower and higher age were there. He could not know their sequence, their directions, their clothes and further when the identification proceeding was over, he could not tell.
9
the time of incident, he saw the 05 accused persons from front side and one accused person from back side. He further stated that he could not identified the accused Govind, Sanju, Santosh, Mohan and Uttam by putting his hands on their heads, but identified by putting his hands on their shoulders. He could not tell that as to why all the 05 accused persons were brought in covered face. He could not remember as to whether the sequence of the accused persons were changed or not.
10
assaulted by the accused persons. He could not tell as to what clothes the accused persons and other persons, who were mixed at the time of TIP, but what clothes they wore. Whom he has identified first, he could not remember. He has further stated that the persons, who were mixed with the accused persons at the time of TIP, were of different age group, which was of 70-80 years as well as young persons also. At the time of TIP, except him no other persons were there. He further denied that Mohan and Govind were also engaged in the business of potato and onion and they were also installed the shop in the market. He further stated that he was not called by the police for TIP, but he himself went there in TIP. He stated that total 15-16 persons were mixed with the accused persons at the time of TIP. The accused persons were not put before the victim of the offence, from whom the amount is said to have been looted and who received injuries in the incident for the reason best known to the prosecution. He has stated in his deposition that despite having discharge from the hospital, the accused persons were not put before him for TIP. The TIP was conducted in presence of PW-2 Pradeep Kumar and PW-3 Masooq Ali. Although they have stated that they saw the accused persons at the time of incident and could have identified when they saw them, but at the time of TIP the persons of same age group were not mixed with the accused persons. Pradeep Kumar (PW-2) has stated in para 8 of his deposition that at the time of TIP, the persons of more and less age were also there. Likewise, Masooq Ali (PW-3) has stated in para 11 of his deposition that at the time of TIP the persons who were mixed with the accused persons were the age group of 70-80 years as well as the young persons
11
also. Both the witnesses have made in consistent statement about the number of persons, who were mixed with the accused persons at the time of TIP. PW-2 has stated that he has identified the 05 accused persons, whereas PW-3 has stated that he has identified 06 accused persons.
12
He admitted that if the accused persons were seen by the witnesses in the Police Station, he could not know. From the overall evidence produced by the prosecution with respect to the TIP, it is not of that sterling quality, which can be relied upon to hold that they involved in the offence. There are inconsistencies in the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, who are the witnesses of TIP. As discussed herein above and also in view of the evidence of PW-6 N.R. Sahu, the prosecution could not establish that the TIP is free from any doubt and can be relied upon to hold that the accused persons have committed the offence and who had duly identified by the complainant. The accused persons have not been put before the victims for their identification, and thus I hold that there is serious lacuna in the prosecution case to establish the identification of the accused persons, who involved in the offence.
13
Khushiyal Ahmad at Sector 9 Hospital, Bhilai and found that the victim has received injuries on his left lung, blood was collected in his abdomen, for which he was being operated and found that his small intestine were purported. He was being treated and discharged from the hospital on 14.10.1996. His bed head ticket is Ex.P/4-A . True it is that the victim Khushiyal Ahmad has received number of incised wound on his body including the internal injuries, which were grievous in nature, but the question would be, who caused the injuries.
14
Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge
ved
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the TIP evidence reliably established the appellants' identification as participants in the armed robbery?
Whether memorandum-based recoveries of weapons and cash connected the appellants to the offence without an FSL report?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sanju @ Vikesh Kumar
Govind
State of Chhattisgarh
Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
