Jharkhand High Court (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) disposes of three connected Criminal Appeals (S.J.) Nos. 721, 633 and 758 of 2012 by a common judgment, arising out of S.T. No. 304 of 2002 (Special Judge, Vigilance, Hazaribag), challenging the common judgment of conviction dated 28.05.2012 and order of sentence dated 31.05.2012 convicting the appellants under Section 395 IPC and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for a night-time dacoity at the informant's dwelling house (fardbeyan dated 03.12.2001; Mandu P.S. Case No. 356 of 2001; cash of Rs. 60,000/-, gold jewelleries of 18 Bhars and silver ornament of 1 Kg. looted; informant's father abducted and tied to a Mahua tree). The Court affirmed that the commission of the dacoity itself was established by consistent, uncontroverted witness testimony, but framed the main point for determination as whether the prosecution proved the identity of the appellants. Applying the settled position (with reference to Matru @ Girish Chandra v. State of UP, 1971(2) SCC 75) that a test identification parade is corroboratory and confirmatory, not substantive, while dock identification is substantive, the Court found the identifications defective: the TIP was held after six months; the informant's father (P.W.-2), who had been abducted, could identify none of the participants; P.W.-5's TIP and dock identifications were discredited because, per the Judicial Magistrate (P.W.-8), she had seen two of the accused in the police station; and witness Dilip Sao identified in TIP a person (Brahmdeo Tahkur) who was not an accused. Accordingly, the identification in TIP as well as in Court was held not reliable and trustworthy, the appellants were given the benefit of doubt, and the conviction and sentence were set aside. All three appeals were allowed, the sureties' bail-bond liabilities were discharged, and Rs. 5000/- each was directed to be paid to the Amicus Curiae by Member Secretary, JHALSA (decision dated 10 April 2024).
