Munna And Another vs State on 16 April, 2026





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:83288
 

 
Reserved on 10.12.2025 
 
Delivered on 16.4.2026
 
 
 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 775 of 1987   
 
   Munna And Another    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
Chandra Prakash Tiwari, S.K. Srivastava, V.S.Singh   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
A.G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 89
 
   
 
 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

1. Heard Shri Lal Chand Mishra, holding brief of Sri Chandra Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K.K.Gupta, learned AGA for the State.

2. The accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order dated 10.3.1987 passed by Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area Act) Hamirpur in Special Case No. 109 of 1982, whereby appellant has been sentenced up to seven years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 395/397 IPC.

3. The appeal in respect of appellant no. 1 (Munna) has abated vide order dated 5.2.2018.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that a written report (Ex. Ka-1) was lodged at Police Station Shrinagar, District Hamirpur, by the informant, PW-1 Maharaj Singh. In his report, PW-1 Maharaj Singh , a resident of village Tola, stated that on the intervening night of 12/13.06.1982, his sleep was disturbed by the sound of footsteps coming from the roof of his house. At that time, he was sleeping inside the house along with his wife, PW-2 Maya Devi, and his uncle and aunt (Mausa and Mausi ). Shortly thereafter, about 6?7 unknown miscreants entered the house and demanded disclosure of the places where valuables were kept. When the informant and his family members raised an alarm, the miscreants, who were armed with guns and axes, became enraged and assaulted the informant's uncle and aunt. The uncle sustained an axe injury on his back, while the aunt received injuries on her abdomen. Upon hearing the alarm, villagers rushed towards the house, but by then the miscreants had fled after looting jewellery and other household articles. On the basis of the said written report, a First Information Report in Case Crime No. 32 of 1982, under Sections 395 and 397 IPC, was registered against 6?7 unknown persons at about 3:30 a.m. on 13.06.1982.

5. The investigation of the case was entrusted to PW-6 S.I. Daleram Mukesh, who commenced the investigation on the following morning. The injured persons, including the uncle and aunt, were sent to the District Hospital for medical examination, where they were examined on 13.06.1982 at about 4:15 a.m. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of PW-1 Maharaj Singh and PW-2 Maya Devi, inspected the place of occurrence, and prepared the site plan. During the course of investigation, the I.O. received information that certain miscreants armed with country-made firearms were likely to appear at a particular place. Acting on such information, he arrested accused Hanumant Singh on 03.08.1982 and recovered a country-made gun as well as certain articles alleged to have been looted in the dacoity at the house of PW-1. During interrogation, the said accused allegedly confessed his involvement in the incident along with his associates. Subsequently, co-accused Mannu Singh and Jagdish Prasad were arrested on 04.08.1982 and 07.08.1982 respectively, and they too allegedly made similar confessional statements. All the accused were sent to jail and later produced before PW-5, S.D.M. Mahavir Prasad Awasthi, for conducting a test identification parade. The test identification parade was conducted under his supervision, wherein PW-2 Maya Devi identified the accused persons. Identification of the recovered articles was also conducted on 24.08.1982 under the supervision of the said Magistrate. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against all the accused under Sections 395 and 397 IPC.

6. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where charges under Sections 395 and 397 IPC were framed against accused Hanumant Singh, Mannu Singh, and Jagdish Prasad. An additional charge under Section 412 IPC was framed against accused Hanumant Singh. All the accused denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined ten witnesses in support of its case. PW-1 Maharaj Singh and PW-2 Maya Devi supported the prosecution version, stating that on the night of the incident, while they were sleeping in their house, the accused persons along with other miscreants entered the house, committed dacoity, and fled away. They further stated that although the miscreants had covered their faces, their identification was possible in the moonlight and in the light of torches used by the informant and the villagers.

7. PW-5 S.D.M. Mahavir Prasad Awasthi deposed that the test identification parade was conducted under his supervision and that PW-2 Maya Devi correctly identified the accused persons. PW-10 Constable Rajbahadur Singh filed an affidavit stating that the accused were kept properly covered while in police custody so as to prevent their identification prior to the test identification parade. This version was corroborated by PW-7 Keshav Prasad, PW-8 Santosh Kumar, and PW-9 Deshraj Singh. PW-6 S.I. Daleram Mukesh proved the various steps taken during the investigation, including the arrest of the accused and the recovery of the country-made firearm and alleged stolen articles. He stated that the arrests were made on the basis of information received from a police informer and that the accused disclosed their involvement in the offence during interrogation.

8. The learned trial court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Hanumant Singh was convicted under Sections 395, 397, and 412 IPC, as well as under Section 25 of the Arms Act, while the co-accused Mannu Singh and Jagdish Prasad were convicted under Sections 395 and 397 IPC.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that accused Mannu Singh and Jagdish Prasad were already known to PW-1 Maharaj Singh, as their village was situated at a distance of about 2 kilometres from the village of the informant. PW-1 Maharaj Singh himself admitted in his testimony that he was acquainted with the said accused persons. It was argued that despite such prior acquaintance, their names were not mentioned in the FIR, which creates a serious doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution case. It was further submitted that the arrests were made nearly two months after the incident and that there was an unexplained delay in holding the test identification parade, thereby diminishing its evidentiary value. It is a settled principle of law that a test identification parade should be conducted at the earliest opportunity after the arrest of the accused, however, in the present case, the identification parade was conducted after a considerable delay.

10. It was also argued that although the prosecution witnesses claimed that the accused were identified in the light of the moon and torches, there was no reliable evidence on record to establish the availability of sufficient light at the time of the incident. Both witnesses admitted that the miscreants had covered their faces, and in such circumstances, identification of the accused by a single witness during the test identification parade becomes doubtful. In the absence of corroborative evidence regarding visibility, the claim of identification appears unnatural, particularly when the faces of the assailants were concealed.

11. It was further contended that PW-1 Maharaj Singh did not participate in the test identification parade and instead sent PW-2 Maya Devi for identification, even though he claimed to have known the accused persons earlier. PW-2, on the other hand, did not claim any prior acquaintance with the accused.This circumstance raises a doubt as to whether the accused were actually identified at the time of the incident but their names were deliberately omitted from the FIR, or whether the real culprits remained unidentified and the present accused were falsely implicated. In view of these inconsistencies, the evidence relating to the test identification parade, including the identification of the appellants, is not reliable and does not inspire confidence.

12. Learned A.G.A., per contra, contended that the prosecution case is fully supported by prompt lodging of the FIR, which rules out any possibility of deliberation or false implication. It is submitted that the incident occurred during night hours under compelling circumstances and, therefore, non-mentioning of names of accused persons in the FIR, even if they were allegedly known, is not fatal to the prosecution case. He further argued that the testimony of PW-1 Maharaj Singh and PW-2 Maya Devi is consistent and inspires confidence, and their presence at the place of occurrence is natural and undisputed. The identification of the accused in the test identification parade conducted under the supervision of a Magistrate lends assurance to their involvement, particularly when there is no material to show that the accused were exposed to the witnesses prior to the parade. It is also submitted that minor discrepancies regarding the source of light or delay in holding the identification parade do not go to the root of the matter, especially when the core of the prosecution case remains intact. The recovery of looted articles and weapon at the instance of the accused further corroborates the prosecution version. Hence, it is argued that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and recorded a well-reasoned conviction, which calls for no interference by this Court.

13. Having considered the rival submissions and upon a careful appraisal of the entire evidence on record, this Court finds that the prosecution case arises out of an incident of dacoity alleged to have taken place in the intervening night, wherein 6?7 unknown miscreants, with their faces covered, entered the house of the informant and committed loot after assaulting the inmates. The case of the prosecution, so far as the present appellant Jagdish Prasad is concerned, hinges primarily upon his identification during investigation and in the Test Identification Parade. Since the entire prosecution case rests upon the identification of the appellant, it is necessary to examine whether the Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted in accordance with law. The object of TIP is to test the memory of the witnesses and, therefore, it must be held at the earliest opportunity after arrest. It is expected that prior to the parade, the Investigating Officer records descriptive particulars of the accused, including features, lighting conditions, distance and duration of observation. The parade is to be conducted by a Magistrate with necessary safeguards, ensuring that the accused is mixed with similar-looking persons, witnesses are examined separately, and there is no possibility of prior exposure. These precautions are essential to ensure fairness and reliability, failing which the evidentiary value of such identification becomes doubtful.

14. It is well settled that where the prosecution case substantially depends upon identification, any inordinate and unexplained delay in holding TIP diminishes its evidentiary value and necessitates a cautious approach, particularly where the witnesses had only a fleeting glimpse of the accused and no prior descriptive particulars are available. In such circumstances, the possibility of the accused being shown to the witnesses or fading memory cannot be ruled out, rendering the identification unsafe to rely upon, especially when it forms the sole basis of conviction, as held in Md. Sajjad @ Raju @ Salim v. State of West Bengal. (AIR 2017 SC 642).

15. Applying the aforesaid settled principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the prosecution case against the surviving appellant Jagdish Prasad substantially rests upon his identification. However, the record reveals serious infirmities in the identification process. Admittedly, PW-1 Maharaj Singh had prior acquaintance with appellant Jagdish Prasad, yet his name does not find place in the promptly lodged F.I.R., which creates a serious doubt regarding the prosecution version. Further, the incident is alleged to have taken place at midnight, when the witnesses suddenly woke up from sleep and the assailants had covered their faces. In such circumstances, when the entire occurrence concluded within a short span of few minutes, the possibility of proper and reliable identification becomes highly doubtful, particularly in absence of any clear evidence regarding sufficient source of light.

16. It is further evident that the identification of the appellant in the Test Identification Parade suffers from inherent weaknesses. The parade was not conducted with promptitude and there is no material to show that any prior description of the accused was noted by the Investigating Officer, as required under settled legal principles. Records reveals serious infirmities in the identification process. The F.I.R. lodged on 13-06-1982 does not contain any description of the unknown accused. Similarly, the statements of witnesses P.W.-1 Maharaj Singh and P.W.-2 Maya Devi recorded during investigation and the testimony of the Investigating Officer (P.W.-6) do not indicate that any descriptive features of the accused were ever noted prior to the Test Identification Parade. Even in their depositions before the Court, the witnesses have merely stated that they identified the accused, without disclosing any distinctive features or basis of such identification. Moreover, the identification of the appellant rests solely upon the testimony of PW-2 Maya Devi, however PW-1 Maharaja Singh did not participate in the Test Identification Parade. There is no evidence to suggest that P.W.-2 Maya Devi was already acquainted with appellant-accused.It is well settled that identification by a witness in a Test Identification Parade, particularly in cases where the accused were unknown and had only a fleeting glimpse, is a weak type of evidence and requires substantial corroboration from independent circumstances. In the present case, no such corroborative evidence is forthcoming, thereby rendering the identification evidence unsafe to rely upon.

17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of appellant Jagdish Prasad beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction based solely on such doubtful and unreliable identification evidence cannot be sustained.

18. Accordingly, the appeal, so far as it relates to appellant Jagdish Prasad, deserves to be allowed. The conviction and sentence of appellant Jagdish Prasad under Sections 395 and 397 IPC are hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the charges. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.

19. The Trial Court's record shall be remitted back along with a copy of this judgment.

20. Compliance report be submitted to this Court at the earliest. Office is directed to keep the compliance report on record.

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

April 16, 2026

Ujjawal