The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The dock identification by PW-9 was found unreliable due to the lack of corroborative evidence from the TIP and the non-examination of key witnesses. The manner of arrest was also found doubtful, as there was no corroborative evidence to support the prosecution’s version. The appellant was granted the benefit of doubt and acquitted of all charges. (Paras 13-25)

Major Acts:

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 395 (Dacoity) and 397 (Robbery or Dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt).

2. Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25(1)(b) (Possession of illegal arms).

3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 161 (Examination of witnesses by police).

4. Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 9 (Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts).

Facts:

• Nature of the Litigation: Criminal Appeal challenging the conviction of the appellant under Sections 395 and 397 of the IPC and Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act.

• Who is asking the court and for what remedy? The appellant, Vinod @ Nasmulla, sought acquittal from the Supreme Court after his conviction was upheld by the High Court of Chhattisgarh.

• Reason for filing the case: The appellant was convicted for participating in a dacoity on a bus in 1993, where passengers were robbed, and one passenger was injured by a gunshot.

• What has already been decided until now? The Sessions Court convicted the appellant, and the High Court upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court was approached for final relief.

Issues:

1. Whether the dock identification of the appellant by PW-9 (a police personnel) was reliable in the absence of corroborative evidence from the Test Identification Parade (TIP)?

2. Whether the manner of the appellant’s arrest, as described by PW-5, was credible, especially in the absence of corroborative evidence such as recovery of looted articles or forensic linkage of the weapon to the crime?

3. Whether the prosecution withheld the best evidence, such as the testimony of the bus driver, conductor, and cleaner, who participated in the TIP but were not examined during the trial?

Submissions/Arguments:

• Appellant’s Submissions:
  a. The prosecution withheld the best evidence, including the bus driver, conductor, and cleaner, who participated in the TIP but were not examined.
  b. PW-9’s presence in the bus was doubtful, and his non-participation in the TIP rendered his identification unreliable.
  c. No looted articles were recovered from the appellant, and the country-made pistol allegedly recovered was not linked to the crime through forensic evidence.
  d. The manner of arrest, as described by PW-5, was improbable, as the appellant, allegedly carrying a loaded pistol, did not use it to escape.

• State’s Submissions:
  a. The factum of dacoity was proved beyond doubt, and PW-9 identified the appellant as one of the culprits.
  b. The TIP was promptly conducted, and the appellant was identified by witnesses.
  c. The country-made pistol recovered from the appellant was in working condition, and the forensic report confirmed the presence of live cartridges.

Ratio:

1. Dock Identification: Dock identification by a solitary witness, especially a police personnel, is not sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of corroborative evidence from a TIP. (Paras 13-17)

2. Test Identification Parade (TIP): A TIP is not substantive evidence but only corroborative. If the witnesses who identified the accused in the TIP are not examined during the trial, the TIP loses its evidentiary value. (Paras 14-15)

3. Manner of Arrest: The court must be circumspect in accepting the prosecution’s version of arrest, especially when it lacks corroborative evidence such as recovery of looted articles or forensic linkage of the weapon to the crime. (Paras 18-24)

4. Benefit of Doubt: In cases where the prosecution fails to provide conclusive evidence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. (Para 25)

Subjects:
Dock identification – Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Benefit of doubt – Corroborative evidence – Dacoity – Arms Act – Indian Penal Code – Arrest manner – Forensic evidence – Solitary witness.