SAHAB SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2449 of 1983

Sahab Singh
                                                              .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P.
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)          : Dhirendra Kumar Pal, Ravindra Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)         : A.G.A.

Court No. - 93
            HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Dhirendra Kumar Pal, and
learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, Sri Rahul Asthana.

2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and
order dated 06.10.1983 passed by the VI Additional Sessions Judge,
Mainpuri, in Sessions Trial No. 504 of 1982, convicting the appellant under
Section 395 I.P.C. and sentencing him to four years' rigorous imprisonment.

3. The First Information Report was lodged at Police Station Karhal, District
Mainpuri. It was alleged that in the intervening night of 21/22.05.1982, at
about midnight, nine to ten miscreants came to the house of the complainant,
Lakhan Singh. At that time, the informant was sleeping outside his house
under a chappar situated in his courtyard. His grandmother and maternal
aunt were also lying there. The miscreants caught hold of him, assaulted
him, and forcibly got the back door of the house opened. Thereafter, all the
miscreants entered the house, while two persons remained outside holding
the informant. The miscreants committed theft of clothes, cash, jewellery,
and other household articles. On hearing the cries, Ramdhani, Vishram
Singh, and Ram Sanchi Lal reached the spot. In the light of lanterns and
torches carried by the miscreants, the informant and the witnesses claimed to
have seen and identified them. The miscreants fled away with the looted
articles, including a transistor, torch, pants, bag, utensils (four plates, one
small plate, one large plate, two lotas, and two glasses), jewellery (one pair
of earrings weighing 8 aatana and one ring weighing 4 chariyana), and cash
amounting to Rs. 2,000/-.

4. On the basis of the written report, the FIR was registered and the G.D.
entry was made. The investigation commenced, during which the
Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence, prepared the site
plan, and recorded the statements of witnesses. The accused was arrested,
                                                           CRLA No. 2449 of 1983
                                 2

and a test identification parade was conducted. The accused was identified
by the informant and eyewitness Ramdhani. On the basis of the said
evidence, a charge-sheet was submitted. The trial court framed charges
against the appellant under Sections 395/397 I.P.C. The accused denied the
charges and claimed trial.

5. The prosecution examined P.W.-1 Lakhan Singh (informant), P.W.-2
Ramdhani, P.W.-3 G.C. Saxena (Executive Magistrate), P.W.-4 S.I. Jaipal
Singh, P.W.-5 Head Constable Mahendra Singh, and P.W.-6 Constable
Amrat Singh. Documentary evidence was also adduced.

6. P.W.-1 Lakhan Singh supported the prosecution case and stated that while
he was sleeping outside his house under a chappar along with his
grandmother and maternal aunt, the miscreants arrived, assaulted him, got
the lock of the house opened, and entered inside, where they committed
dacoity of household articles. He further stated that he lodged a written
report the next day. During investigation, the accused Sahab Singh was
arrested, and he identified him during the test identification parade in jail. He
further stated that he had seen and identified the accused in the light of a
lantern. He also deposed that none of the miscreants had covered their faces
and that he clearly recognized them. Some of the miscreants were armed
with lathis, while others were carrying weapons. He admitted that he did not
have a torch and that a lantern was burning on the wall of the kitchen.

7. P.W.-2 Ramdhani did not support the prosecution case regarding
identification and was declared hostile. He stated that although he reached
the spot upon hearing the alarm, he could not see the faces of the miscreants
as they were fleeing towards the north. He further stated that he had gone to
jail for identification and had identified one person there. However, in court,
he stated that he had not seen the accused committing the dacoity and had
only seen him earlier on some other occasion. Despite cross-examination by
the prosecution, nothing material could be elicited to discredit his testimony.

8. P.W.-3 S.I. G.C. Saxena deposed that he arrested the accused Sahab Singh
for the purpose of identification. The identifying marks were duly concealed,
and about ten persons of similar age and appearance were made to stand in
the identification parade. The informant was called, and the accused was
identified by the informant Lakhan Singh and witness Ramdhani. In cross-
examination, he stated that the accused was already a wanted person and
several cases were pending against him. No recovery was made in
connection with the present case. Although the accused allegedly confessed,
no stolen property was recovered.

9. P.W.-5 Head Constable Mahendra Singh stated that the accused was
arrested and brought to the police station. At the time of arrest, a country-
made pistol and cartridges were recovered, leading to a separate case under
                                                          CRLA No. 2449 of 1983
                                 3

Section 25 of the Arms Act.

10. P.W.-6 Constable Amrat Singh deposed that on 22.05.1982, the
informant submitted a written complaint on the basis of which the FIR was
registered. He proved the chik FIR and G.D. entry in his handwriting.

11. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded,
wherein he denied the allegations and stated that he was falsely implicated
after being apprehended from a threshing floor (khalihan). He further stated
that he had been shown to the witnesses at the police station prior to
identification.

12. After hearing the parties, the trial court convicted the accused and
sentenced him to four years' rigorous imprisonment.

13. Aggrieved, the present appeal was filed on the grounds that the
conviction is against the weight of evidence and bad in law, and that the
sentence is too severe.

14. Learned A.G.A. supported the conviction.

15. Counsel for the appellant argued that the matter is over four decades old
and that the appellant has no other criminal antecedents. It was contended
that the identification is doubtful, as the test identification parade was
conducted after about 25 days. It was further argued that identification in
dim lantern light at midnight is unreliable, and that there is no corroboration,
as P.W.-2 turned hostile. No looted property was recovered.

16. Upon consideration, this Court finds that the prosecution case rests
primarily on identification evidence. The delay of about 25 days in holding
the identification parade weakens its reliability. The informant admitted that
he had no torch and relied only on lantern light. Identification of one person
among nine to ten miscreants in such conditions, and retaining memory after
such delay, does not inspire confidence.

17. Further, the identification is not corroborated by independent evidence.
P.W.-2 did not support the prosecution and categorically denied seeing the
accused at the time of occurrence.

18. It is also significant that none of the looted property was recovered from
the accused, and no explanation was provided regarding its disposal.

19. In criminal jurisprudence, where conviction rests primarily on
identification evidence, such evidence must be of sterling quality and
                                                                                              CRLA No. 2449 of 1983
                                                                     4

                                    ordinarily requires corroboration.

                                    20. In the present case, the evidence is too weak and uncertain to sustain
                                    conviction. The benefit of doubt must go to the accused. The appeal deserves
                                    to be allowed.

                                    21. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of
                                    conviction are set aside.

                                    22. The appellant, Sahab Singh, is acquitted of all charges. As he is on bail,
                                    his bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.

                                    23. Let a copy of this judgment, along with the trial court record, if received,
                                    be transmitted forthwith to the court concerned.
                                    April 15, 2026
                                    Pravesh Mishra
                                                                                 (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
PRAVESH KUMAR MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad