Supreme Court Acquits in Dacoity Case Citing Doubtful Identification and Arrest

Supreme Court allowed the appeal thereby setting aside the order of the Sessions Judge and the High Court of Chhattisgarh and acquitted the appellant, Vinod @ Nasmulla, of offence under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

Brief of the Case Background: The case pertained to an appeal against concurrent conviction by the Sessions Judge and the High Court of Chhattisgarh. The appellant Vinod @ Nasmulla was convicted for dacoity with the use of arms and for illegal arm possession in the case of a September 1993 bus robbery. The prosecution alleged that the appellant was one of the eight armed men who looted the passengers of a bus. While a TIP was conducted where the appellant was reportedly identified by the bus driver and Khalasi (neither of whom were examined in court), the only identifying witness during the trial was a police constable who claimed to have been a passenger on the bus.

Another police constable gave evidence of arresting the appellant with a country-made pistol which was also loaded. However, the Apex Court found it to be as only one police constable who happens to be attending his nature's call caught hold of the accused single handedly without there being any resistance and sings of injuries. moreover, the appellant appealed against his conviction on the grounds of untrustworthy identification, no recovered stolen property, and suspicious arrest circumstances. The co-accused, Mohd. Kalam Ansari, was acquitted by the trial court.

The Supreme Court held the dock identification of PW-9 to be unreliable on the grounds of the following: the questionable presence of PW-9 on the bus, his failure to attend the Test Identification Parade (TIP) despite having seen the appellant previously, and the prosecution's neglect to examine the material witnesses who had attended the TIP, i.e., the bus driver, conductor, and Khalasi.

The Apex Court observing the prosecution story to be too convenient to be acceptable, and also raised questions on not cross-examining the witness and reaffirmed that a TIP under Section 9 of the Evidence Act, 1872, is corroborative evidence and it loses its evidentiary value if the identifying witnesses are not cross-examined in court. The Court held "Thus, if the witness who identified a person or an article in the TIP is not examined during trial, the TIP report which may be useful to corroborate or contradict him would lose its evidentiary value for the purposes of identification."

In addition, the Court also found the circumstances of the arrest of the appellant and the recovery of the pistol to be questionable. The account of a single constable (PW-5) arresting the appellant, who was reportedly carrying a loaded pistol, without incident or harm appearing dubious. The unreasonable time lag in the preparation of the seizure memo and inconsistency in the description of the seized weapon made the prosecution's case on recovery weaker.

The important observations made by the Court are:

*A test identification parade (TIP) is not substantive evidence but only corroborative evidence under Section 9 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

If the witnesses who identified a person in the TIP are not examined during the trial, the TIP loses its evidentiary value for identification purposes.

Dock identification by a solitary witness, especially a police personnel, without corroboration and when better evidence is withheld, does not inspire confidence.

The manner of arrest by a single police officer of an accused allegedly carrying a loaded weapon, without any resistance or injury, raises doubts about the veracity of the prosecution's account.

Delays in preparing seizure memos and discrepancies in the description of seized articles can dent the credibility of the prosecution's case regarding recovery.

In the absence of recovery of any looted article or forensic linkage of the recovered weapon to the crime, and with a doubtful arrest, the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the Apex Court acquitting the appellant, Vinod @ Nasmulla, of charges under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

Coram: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
Between: Vinod @ Nasmulla vs The State of Chhattisgarh 2025 INSC 220
Date of Judgment: 14-02-2025