Allahabad High Court
Ram Bhawan Harijan vs State Of U.P. on 23 April, 2026
Author: Siddhartha Varma
Bench: Siddhartha Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:90284-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5148 of 2025
Ram Bhawan Harijan
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Sushil Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Kiran Bala, G.A.
A.F.R. Reserved on 03.04.2026 Delivered on 23.04.2026
Court No. - 42
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.
(Delivered by Jai Krishna Upadhyay, J.)
1. Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant; Smt. Kiran Bala, learned counsel appearing for the infromant and Sri Ajay Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the trial Court record as well as the judgment and order passed by the trial Court.
2. Initially the learned counsel for the appellant was pressing the bail application but subsequently when the learned counsel for the first informant opposed the same and insisted that the case be finally heard, learned counsel for the appellant argued the case finally. The paper book in the case had already been prepared.
3. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 18.04.2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prayagraj arising out of Case Crime No. 81 of 2021, registered as Sessions Trial No. 2103 of 2021 (State Vs. Ram Bhawan Harijan), whereby the learned District and Sessions Judge had convicted appellant under Section 302/201 I.P.C. and sentenced him under Section 302 I.P.C. to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In case of default in the payment of fine, he was sentenced to under go additional sentence of one year. Further, he was sentenced three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/- for under Section 201 I.P.C. In case of default in the payment of fine, he has been sentenced to under go additional sentence of 15 days.
4. The prosecution story in nutshell is as under:-
4.1. Informant Mukesh alias Virendra, son of Harilal, resident of Semri Tarhar, Police Station Lalapur, District-Prayagraj, had given a tehrir at Police Station Lalapur on 29.07.2021 and lodged first information report to the effect that on 27.07.2021 at 4 pm, his daughter Mohini Devi, aged about 5 years, had gone to play near the pond on the south side of the village and she did not return home. Her description is as follows: Age 5 years, fair complexion, height 2.5 feet, short hair on the head, a pimple on the right foot, wearing a blue frock, yellow leggings, and a white handkerchief, and was barefoot. When she did not return, he searched for her extensively but she was not found. Thereafter, the informant went to the police station for registering the F.I.R. On 29.07.2021, the F.I.R. was registered at Police Station Lalapur.
4.2. The informant again submitted an application dated 31.07.2021 to the Station House Officer, Bara, District Prayagraj, to the effect that his daughter, Mohini, had gone to the pond to play on 27.07.2021 at around 4:00 p.m., however she had not returned and had gone missing. After a thorough search, he submitted a written application on 29.07.2021, registering a case under Section 363 of I.P.C. He, subsequently heard that a body of an unidentified girl had been recovered at the Bara police station. Upon receiving this information, the informant reached the Bara police station. Upon viewing the body, he identified it as that of his daughter, Mohini, aged around 5 years. He suspected that Ram Bhawan Harijan, a resident of his village in the district of Prayagraj, had murdered his daughter Mohini and had thrown her body in the canal to conceal it.
4.3 Thereafter, in the instant case, an inquest was prepared by S.I. Ajit Singh and other documents were prepared. The inquest report and other documents were exhibited as Ex. Ka-3 and Ex. Ka7 to Ex. Ka11. After the inquest report was prepared, the body of the deceased Mohini was sent for postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. Uttam Singh Yadav. A total of three injuries on the body of the deceased were found and the cause of death was axphysia due to strangulation and smothering. The post-mortem report is exhibited as Ex. Ka6.
4.4. This case was investigated by SI Ajay Kumar Gupta, who prepared the site plan Ex. Ka-7 and recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet against accused-appellant Ram Bhawan Harijan was submitted and thereafter, the matter was committed to the Court of Session and charges under Sections 302/201 I.P.C. were framed against the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial.
5. During the course of trial as many as 9 prosecution witnesses were examined. The incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the appellant while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellant denied the incriminating circumstances and claimed that he had been falsely implicated in the present case.
6. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial judge convicted the appellant. Hence, this appeal.
7. Sri Sushil Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that:-
(i) PW1, PW2 and PW3 are not eye witnesses of the incident. The prosecution has not examined any eye witness of the incident. He further submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove the intention/motive to commit the murder of the deceased.
(ii) This case is based upon circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances has not been established by the prosectuion. In the present case, there is no evidence regarding the last seen. The accused has been only identified by the so called ?shawl? of the accused. However, it has also been submitted that the shawl was not belonging to the accused. Moreover, PW6 Ajit Singh, who prepared the inquest report has stated that the body was not wrapped in Shawl due to which the statement related to the shawl also become false and doubtful.
8. Per contra, Smt. Kiran Bala, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ajay Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State submitted that prosecution has successfully proved that the accused had enmity with the informant and had threatened him a few days immediately before the incident. They submitted that in the present case, the accused was identified by his shawl. Prosecution witnesses had supported the version of the prosecution. They lastly submitted that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
9.Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to first analyze the testimony of witnesses.
10. PW1 Virendra alias Mukesh is the informant who has stated that he is illiterate and he can only sign. The incident occurred approximately one year and four months ago at 4 p.m. On that day, his daughter Mohini, aged around 5 to 6 years, went to play in a pond situate on the south side of the village. When she did not return, he searched for her everywhere, but failed to trace her out. On the next day, he again searched everywhere for her. His father, Hari Lal, and the village Pradhan Naresh, also searched for her. When the whereabouts of her daughter were not found, he along with his father and village Pradhan went to the police station Lalapur to register a missing report. After four days of filing the missing report, the police Inspector of Police Station Lalapur informed him that a dead body of a girl had been found. On receiving the said information he along with his father Hari Lal, elder brother of his father Baijnath,Village Pradhan Naresh and Ibrahim went to the police Station concerned . The concerned Inspector of Police took all of them to the Canal where they saw that the dead body of his daughter Mohini was lying. He recognized the dead body by looking at her face and clothes. The body was swollen and was wrapped in a Shawl which belonged to the accused Ram Bhawan Harijan. He knew the accused Ram Bhawan from before the incident since he was his neighbour. He suspected that Ram Bhawan had murdered his daughter and had thrown her body into the canal to hide it. Before this incident, there was a dispute with Ram Bhawan. He had said, "You call me 'Katli-Katli', and I will destroy you."
11. PW2 Hari Lal is the grandfather of the deceased who had stated that incident is of the year 2021. About 27 to 28 months back at around 4 pm, his grand-daughter Mohini, had gone to play in the pond, south of the house and did not return. When she did not return, he along with others searched for her but could not find her. When his granddaughter had gone to play, she was wearing speckled sky blue and yellow leggings. She was wearing a dark dull scarf in her neck. His son Virendra and Mukesh had reported the incident to the police station about the fact that her granddaughter had gone missing. The police came and inquired. After that, he, Baijnath, Naresh, Doctor Pradhan, and a few other people from the village went to Pratappur with the police. He had said that all of them had searched extensively but couldn't find the girl. On the fourth day, the police inspector informed them that a dead body had been found on the canal track near Bhodi village Bara police station. They asked him to go and identify the body. His elder brother Baijnath, Harilal, Swayam Ibrahim, Doctor Pradhan and Mukesh went there to identify the body. When they reached there, they saw that it was his granddaughter's body, which was swollen and the tongue was sticking out. They had seen that the dead body was wrapped in a shawl, which belonged to Ram Bhawan. Ram Bhawan used to walk around the village wearing it. All this, completely convinced him that Ram Bhawan had murdered his granddaughter. The body was sealed at the spot where it was found, and the Panchayatnama proceedings were conducted and it was sent for post-mortem. He had stated that along with him there were people namely, Dr. Naresh Kumar, my elder brother Baijnath, Virendra alias Mukesh, and Ibrahim. He had put his thumb impression on the Panchayatnama. He had further stated that 3 to 4 months prior to the incident, Ram Bhawan had threatened him that he would kill him, ruin his sons and leave them worthless. He has proved the inquest paper nos. 7A/2 to 7A/3, which is exhibited as Ex. Ka3. He stated that four days after filing the report, the dead body of his granddaughter was found. He had gone to the place where the dead body was found, in connection with this incident.
12. PW 3 Baijnath stated that Mukesh alias Virendra is his nephew. His daughter's name was Mohini. The incident occurred on 27.07 2021, at around 4 p.m. Mohini was five years old at that time. She went to play near the pond to the south of his house that day from where, she did not return. They began searching for her, but could not find her. The next day, their family and villagers searched again. On 29.07.2021, Mukesh lodged a report at the police station. The police searched his house and surrounding areas. His nephew, Surendra, circulated Mohini's posters throughout the village and via mobile phone. On 31.07.2021, the police called them to the police station and took them to the canal in Bhodi village, where the dead body of a young girl was found. Upon seeing the dead body, they recognized it as that of Mohini. She was wearing a spotted kurti, a sky-blue shirt, and a dull white scarf wrapped around her neck. The dead body was swollen and her tongue was protruding. The body was wrapped in a spotted shawl. He recognized that shawl, but did not tell anyone. Then the body was taken to Police Station Bara. At the police station, the dead body was sealed in a white cloth and the formalities were done. A Panchayatnama was done. His signature is on Panchayatnama paper no. 7A which is exhibited as Ex. Ka3. Then the body was taken to the mortuary. After the post-mortem, they brought the dead body to Daraganj and performed the last rites. After that, when the Inspector came to the village, his brother Hari Lal called for the shawl which was with Mohini's body. He did not tell anything on the spot but went to the police station and told that the shawl belonged to the accused Ram Bhawan.
13. PW4 HC Samarendra Singh stated that on 29.07.2021, he was posted in the Police Station Lalapur, District Prayagraj. On that day, on the basis of written report of informant Mukesh alias Virendra, son of Hari Lal Raidas, resident of Semri Tarhar, Police Station Lalapur, District Prayagraj, FIR No. 81/21 was registered at 15.31 PM against unknown, under section 363 of IPC. He has proved the chick F.I.R. which is exhibited as Ex. Ka4.
14. PW5 is the Dr. Uttam Singh Yadav who had stated that on 31.07.2021, he was posted as Medical Officer in Tej Bahadur Sapru Hospital. On that day, he was on duty with Medical Officer Dr. Suryabhan Singh Yadav in the mortuary for postmortem. On that day, he conducted post-mortem of the dead body. The dead body was 112 cm tall, of medium built, and had been decapitated. The skin could be easily removed.
14.1 Injuries as were reported:-
External injuries on the lip-
1. Abrasion 1 cm X 0.5 cm above the lip
2. Contusion 1 x 0.5 cm in the middle of the lower lip
3. A ligature mark measuring approximately 3 cm wide was found around the neck. The ligature mark was located 6 cm below the groin and 6 cm below the left shoulder. Inspection of the ligature mark revealed blood clots within the muscle, and the hyoid bone, the killing chest bone, was found to be broken.
Note-Pelvic content coming out through vaginal opening.
Internal injury ? found on opening the brain.
14.2. The fifth and sixth vertebrae on the right side of the chest were found broken. The pleura was congested. Both lungs were congested. The stomach contained 200 grams of food. Intestinal mucus and gases were present. The large intestine contained the liver, spleen, pancreas, and both kidneys. Objects were protruding from the vagina and the inside of the cavity. The probable time of death was approximately four days prior. The cause of death was axphysia, strangulation, and smothering. There was a cleft, a leggings, and a towel on the deceased's body. The post-mortem was started at 2:20 and concluded at 2:50. The seal was found to be intact.
15.PW6 Ajeet Singh was the Sub-Inspector who has stated in his statement that on 30.07.2021, the body of an unidentified deceased was found in the Bhodi Canal. The information was provided by Vimlesh, son of Bhagirathi, a resident of Bhodi village, Bara police station. Since he was the station in-charge, the responsibility of preparing inquest report was assigned to him. He has proved the inquest report paper nos. 7A/2 to 7A/4 which is exhibited as Ex. Ka3. He has also proved the documents relating to the inquest report i.e. the Challan Nash, Photonash, letter of R.I. and letter of C.M.O., which are exhibited as Ex. Ka7 to Ka11.
16. PW7 Inspector Ajay Kumar Gupta was the Investigating Officer, who has prepared the site plan of the incident which is exhibited as Ex. Ka-8.
17. PW8 Manish Kumar Tripathi was one of the Investigating Officers in the instant case who had stated that investigation of the instant case was transferred to him by the earlier Investigating Officer, namely, Vrandavan Rai, who stated that on the instruction of S.I. Ajeet Singh, he prepared the site plan of the place where the dead body was recovered. He has proved the site paln which is exhibited as Ex. Ka8. He has also proved the charge sheet submitted against the accused-appellant, which is exhibited as Ex. Ka9.
18. PW9 Manoj Kumar was the Head Constable who has proved the recovered articles i.e. Shawl, Frock, Leggings and Scarf as material exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively.
19. Evidently, the present case rests entirely upon circumstantial evidence, as admittedly there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged occurrence. It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that in cases where direct evidence is absent, the court must meticulously examine the chain of circumstances to determine if they lead to the sole conclusion of the guilt of the accused. As held by the Hon?ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and should be so complete as to not leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. Accordingly, we shall now proceed to discuss the specific circumstances and the evidence produced by the prosecution to see whether they established a complete chain as whether they indicated, beyond a reasonable doubt, the guilt of the accused.
20. In the present case, there is only one circumstance against the accused and it is also the cornerstone of the prosecution's case i.e. recovery of the dead body, allegedly wrapped in a "shawl" belonging to the appellant. However, a fatal contradiction exists between the ocular testimony and the contemporaneous documentary evidence. While PW2 and PW3 emphatically stated that the body was found wrapped in the appellant's shawl, the testimony of Dr. Uttam Singh Yadav (PW5) and the Inquest Report prepared by SI Ajeet Singh (PW6) categorically omit the presence of any such shawl during the inquest and autopsy. This discrepancy suggests that the "link" of the shawl may have been an afterthought to connect the appellant to the crime.
21. Even if the court were to momentarily overlook the contradiction regarding the presence of the shawl, the prosecution?s reliance on its identification is legally unsound. A perusal of the record reveals a total absence of any specific description concerning the shawl?s color, pattern, fabric, or unique identifying marks. The witnesses merely offered a generic identification, claiming it to be a ?spotted shawl? belonging to the accused without explaining how they distinguished it from any other common garment. It is a settled principle of law that for a piece of clothing to serve as a link in a circumstantial chain, it must possess distinct characteristics that preclude the possibility of it belonging to anyone else. In a rural setting where mass-produced garments are common, there is no "hard and fast rule" that a particular type of shawl is unique to one individual. Without a formal Test Identification Parade (TIP) for the property or a detailed forensic description in the seizure memo, it is hazardous to conclude that the shawl found, if it existed, was the exact one owned by the appellant.
22.The prosecution?s narrative regarding the shawl is further marred by a significant procedural lapse during the Panchayat Nama (inquest) conducted on 31.07.21. According to the PW-3, a police officer later came to the village on 01.08.2021 claiming he had "brought this shawl" to show them. As a matter of standard legal procedure, whenever a Panchayat Nama is conducted, every article of clothing or material found on the deceased must be immediately seized, documented in the recovery memo, and sealed on the spot to be sent for forensic examination (FSL). This protocol is mandatory to ensure that the evidence is protected from any form of tampering or planting. However, in this case, the fact that the shawl was allegedly being carried around by a police officer to be shown to villagers, rather than being in a sealed forensic cover, raises a grave concern. This suggests that the "chain of custody" was broken. If the shawl was not sealed at the scene and was instead handled loosely by the police, it loses all its evidentiary value, as it becomes impossible for the Court to be certain that the item was not planted or altered to falsely implicate the accused. Such a casual approach to vital physical evidence creates a serious doubt in the prosecution's story.
23.Having addressed the factual inconsistencies surrounding the recovery of the shawl, it is imperative to evaluate the legal framework under which such a recovery, if accepted, would operate. The prosecution relies on the identification of this ?shawl? to bridge the gap between the accused and the deceased. In the eyes of the law, such a link is governed by Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, which renders relevant any of those facts necessary to explain or introduce a relevant fact, or those which establish the identity of any "thing" whose identity is relevant. Here, the shawl is the "thing" through which the prosecution seeks to establish the identity of the accused. Consequently, the admissibility and weight of this evidence must be scrutinized under Section 9 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which is as follows:
?9. Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts.
Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact, or which establish the identity of anything or person whose identity is relevant, or fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact happened, or which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted, are relevant in so far as they are necessary for that purpose.?
24. Therefore, it can be concluded that Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a provision, designed to ensure that the evidentiary narrative is complete and intelligible. It recognizes five distinct categories of facts as relevant:
(i) those necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact,
(ii) those which support or rebut an inference suggested by a fact in issue or relevant fact,
(iii) those which establish the identity of any person or thing whose identity is relevant,
(iv) those which fix the time or place at which any fact in issue or relevant fact occurred, and
(v) those which show the relation of parties by whom any such fact was transacted.
25. The importance of Section 9 lies in its dual nature; while sometimes much of the focus in criminal trials often rests on the identification of the accused, the law places equal emphasis on the identification of things. The inclusion of ?thing? alongside ?person? makes clear that the provision is not confined to human identification alone. Courts have consistently applied Section 9 to the identification of stolen property, forged documents, handwriting, or other material objects, recognizing that such identification is often crucial to linking circumstantial evidence with the fact in issue. For instance, recovery of stolen articles from the accused, verification of signatures on disputed documents, or determination of the genuineness of a will are all admissible under this section. In the same manner recovery of any article of accused person from the body of deceased is also relevant and admissible under this provision. Thus, Section 9 operates as a connective tissue in the law of evidence, bridging facts in issue with explanatory or corroborative circumstances, and ensuring that both persons and things are properly identified, contextualized, and tested within the judicial process. Accordingly, in the instant matter the alleged ?shawl? is relevant as a thing and facts establishing its identity are also relevant.
26.Further, the primary legal question is whether the mere recovery of an article, and its subsequent identification by witnesses is sufficient to sustain a conviction under the law. It is pertinent to note here that Section 9 requires that the circumstances surrounding the identification should be beyond reproach. If, as the witnesses stated, the police officer simply brought the shawl to the village and claimed it was the one used in the crime, the act of identification is no longer an independent act of recognition; it becomes a guided suggestion. Without a distinct and recorded description that matches the appellant?s specific property, the shawl fails to meet the threshold of a "fact that establishes identity."
27. Following this legal logic, even when the shawl is relevant under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, it cannot serve as the sole basis for a conviction. It is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the evidence of identification, whether of a person or a thing as contemplated under Section 9, is inherently a weak type of evidence and only corroborative in nature. Hon?ble Supreme Court in the case of Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P., (2005) 9 SCC 631 stated:
?16. As was observed by this Court in Matru v. State of U.P. [(1971) 2 SCC 75 :1971 SCC (Cri) 391] identification tests do not constitute substantive evidence.They are primarily meant for the purpose of helping the investigating agency with an assurance that their progress with the investigation into the offence is proceeding on the right lines. The identification can only be used as corroborative of the statement in court. (See Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain [(1973) 2 SCC 406: 1973 SCC (Cri) 828] .) The necessity for holding an identification parade can arise only when the accused are not previously known to the witnesses. The whole idea of a test identification parade is that witnesses who claim to have seen the culprits at the time of occurrence are to identify them from the midst of other persons without any aid or any other source. The test is done to check upon their veracity. In other words, the main object of holding an identification parade, during the investigation stage, is to test the memory of the witnesses based upon first impression and also to enable the prosecution to decide whether all or any of them could be cited as eyewitnesses of the crime. The identification proceedings are in the nature of tests and significantly, therefore, there is no provision for it in the Code and the Evidence Act. It is desirable that a test identification parade should be conducted as soon as after the arrest of the accused. This becomes necessary to eliminate the possibility of the accused being shown to the witnesses prior to the test identification parade. This is a very common plea of the accused and, therefore, the prosecution has to be cautious to ensure that there is no scope for making such an allegation. If, however, circumstances are beyond control and there is some delay, it cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution.
17. It is trite to say that the substantive evidence is the evidence of identification in court. Apart from the clear provisions of Section 9 of the Evidence Act, the position in law is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court. The facts, which establish the identity of the accused persons, are relevant under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. As a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is the statement made in court. The evidence of mere identification of the accused person at the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently of a weak character. The purpose of a prior test identification, therefore, is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence. It is, accordingly, considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier identification proceedings. This rule of prudence, however, is subject to exceptions, when, for example, the court is impressed by a particular witness on whose testimony it can safely rely, without such or other corroboration. The identification parades belong to the stage of investigation, and there is no provision in the Code which obliges the investigating agency to hold or confers a right upon the accused to claim a test identification parade. They do not constitute substantive evidence and these parades are essentially governed by Section 162 of the Code. Failure to hold a test identification parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in court. The weight to be attached to such identification should be a matter for the courts of fact. In appropriate cases it may accept the evidence of identification even without insisting on corroboration. (See Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Admn. [AIR 1958 SC 350: 1958 Cri LJ 698], Vaikuntam Chandrappa v. State of A.P. [AIR 1960 SC 1340: 1960 Cri LJ 1681], Budhsen v. State of U.P. [(1970) 2 SCC 128: 1970 SCC (Cri) 343: AIR 1970 SC 1321] and Rameshwar Singh v. State of J&K [(1971) 2 SCC 715: 1971SCC (Cri) 638: AIR 1972 SC 102].?
28. Then Recently in Vinod @ Nasmulla v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2025) 4 SCC 312 Hon?ble Supreme Court again reiterated that:
?21. A test identification parade under Section 9 of the Evidence Act, 1872[***] is not substantive evidence in a criminal prosecution but is only corroborative evidence. The purpose of holding a test identification parade during the stage of investigation is, firstly, to ensure that the investigating agency is proceeding in the right direction where the accused is unknown and, secondly, to serve as a corroborative piece of evidence when the witness identifies the accused during trial. [Umesh Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2021) 17 SCC 616, para 9; Iqbal v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 623, para 15: (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 301] The evidence of identification merely corroborates and strengthens the oral testimony in court which alone is the primary and substantive evidence as to identity. [Hari Nath v. State of U.P., (1988) 1 SCC 14, para 19: 1988 SCC (Cri) 14]
22. In Rameshwar Singh v. State of J&K [Rameshwar Singh v. State of J&K, (1971) 2 SCC 715: 1971 SCC (Cri) 638], a three-Judge Bench of this Court succinctly summarised the evidentiary value of the TIP as under: (SCC p. 719, para 6) ?6. ? The identification during police investigation ? is not substantive evidence in law and it can only be used for corroborating or contradicting evidence of the witness concerned as given in Court. The identification proceedings ? must be so conducted that evidence with regard to them when given at the trial, enables the court safely to form appropriate judicial opinion about its evidentiary value for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting the statement in Court of the identifying witness.?
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.
23. The rationale behind the aforesaid legal principle is that unless the witness enters the witness box and submits himself for cross-examination how can it 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. Be that as it may, 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.?
29.The legal character of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) as a non-substantive piece of evidence has been firmly established through a long line of Supreme Court jurisprudence, extending from early precedents to very recent rulings. In foundational cases like Kanta Prashad v. Delhi Administration (1958) SCC Online SC 10 and Sheikh Hasib v. State of Bihar (1972) 4 SCC 773, it has been clarified that TIP is primarily an investigative tool intended to reassure the police that their inquiry is moving in the right direction. This principle was further elaborated in cases like Dana Yadav v. State of Bihar (2002) 7 SCC 295 and Munshi Singh (supra), where the Court observed that while dock identification is the only substantive evidence, a prior TIP is a "rule of prudence" necessary to corroborate the witness's memory. Most recently, in Vinod @ Nasmulla(supra) the Supreme Court reaffirmed that TIP cannot be the sole basis of conviction.
30. The collective findings of these judgments and law laid down in Section 9 of Indian Evidence Act,1972(Section 7 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) establishes that the primary purpose of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) or the identification of property under this section is to provide corroborative value to the investigation; it is not a substantive piece of evidence that can stand alone as be the basis of conviction. In the eyes of law, identification is a matter of opinion and memory, which are susceptible to error, influence, or suggestion, especially when the object in question is a common article like a shawl. A "weak" or"corroborative" piece of evidence as per Section 9 requires the support of other strong, independent links to complete the chain of circumstances. Therefore, the evidence of the shawl, being corroborative in nature, is insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.
31.In view of the aforesaid discussions and the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment are not in conformity with the evidence on record. The prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence; however, the chain of circumstances is far from complete. Notably, the recovery of the "shawl" is highly doubtful and lacks evidentiary value. Furthermore, the serious lapses in the investigation process and the lack of independent witnesses create a significant gap in the prosecution's version of events. The learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be of a conclusive nature, leaving no room for any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. Consequently, the judgment of conviction of learned trial Court is found to be unsustainable in the eyes of the law and is liable to be set aside.
32. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, and the judgment of conviction is hereby set aside.
33. The appellant is in jail. If the appellant is not required in any other case, he be released forthwith.
34. Let a copy of the judgment and order alongwith trial court record be sent to the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court for compliance.
35. Before parting with the judgment, I would like to express my appreciation to my Research Associate, Ms. Anjali Singh for her thorough research and assistance to the Court in the instant case.
(Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.) April 23, 2026 AKT