LexVINOD @ NASMULLA versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 80 : 2025 INSC 220 Vinod @ Nasmulla v. The State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No. 1931 of 2019) 14 February 2025 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 is justified. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.395, 397 – Arms Act, 1959 – s.25 – Case of the prosecution that the appellant participated in the dacoity where a bus carrying passengers was looted by eight armed men – However, only two including the appellant were tried – Appellant convicted, co-accused acquitted – Conviction of the appellant upheld by High Court – Challenge to: Held: Neither the FIR nor the statements of eyewitnesses named the appellant or any other accused – Though the TIP for identifying the appellant was conducted and the appellant was identified by two out of three witnesses, but those three witnesses were not examined during trial – Thus, the TIP report, which could be used to either contradict or corroborate the witnesses is of no evidentiary value – Best evidence such as that of the driver, conductor and cleaner of the Bus, who all participated in the TIP was withheld without giving good reason – The dock identification by a solitary witness (PW-9), that too a police personnel fails to inspire confidence to sustain conviction of the appellant particularly, in absence of corroborative evidence of recovery of any looted article either from, or at the instance of the appellant – Manner in which the arrest was effected is also doubtful – Guilt of the appellant not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Judgments of the trial court and High Court set aside – Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt, acquitted. [Paras 11, 15, 17, 24, 25] * Author [2025] 3 S.C.R. 81 Vinod @ Nasmulla v. The State of Chhattisgarh Evidence Act, 1872 – s.9 – Test Identification Parade (TIP) not substantive evidence but only corroborative – Purpose of TIP, enumerated – Non-examination of witness who identified the accused in TIP – Effect: Held: Once the person who identifies the accused during the TIP is not produced as a witness during trial, the TIP is of no use to sustain an identification by some other witness – 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 – Unless the witness enters the witness box and is cross-examined it can not be ascertained as to on what basis he identified the person or the article – Because it is quite possible that before the TIP is conducted the accused may be shown to the witness or the witness may be tutored to identify the accused. [Para 15] Case Law Cited Rameshwar Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir [1972] 1 SCR 627 : (1971) 2 SCC 715; Hari Nath and Another v. State of U.P., [1988] 1 SCR 848 : (1988) 1 SCC 14 – referred to. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Arms Act, 1959; Evidence Act, 1872. List of Keywords Dacoity; Bus carrying passengers; Loot; Dock identification; No recovery of looted article; Test Identification Parade (TIP); No corroborative evidence; Guilt not proved beyond reasonable doubt; Substantive evidence; TIP report; Evidentiary value; Manner of arrest doubtful; Driver; Conductor; Cleaner of the Bus; Best evidence withheld. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1931 of 2019 From the Judgment and Order dated 03.01.2018 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in CRLA No. 3014 of 1999 82 [2025] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Manish Kumar Gupta, Mrs. Sangita Gupta, Sharad Prakash Pandey, Advs. for the Appellant. Apoorv Shukla, Puneet Chahar, Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Manoj Misra, J. 1. This appeal impugns the judgment and order of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur1 dated 03.01.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No.3014 of 1999 whereby the appeal of the appellant against the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, (Surgujha) Ambikapur (then in Madhya Pradesh) dated 26.10.1999, passed in Sessions Trial No.292 of 1994, has been dismissed and conviction of the appellant under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 and Section 25 o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.