Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. It is further contended that articles which were seized, their descriptions were not given in the FIR and in the statements of the witnesses. These articles have not been identified by the prosecution witnesses except a few vide Test Identification Parade of Articles Ex.P/6. Those articles, which were identified by the prosecution witnesses, have not been produced to identify by them in Court. In absence thereof, the test identification of articles is not sufficient to convict the appellants. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Aman and another v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2960 and a Single Bench Decision of this Court in the case of Shiva @ Shivlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2003 Criminal Law Reporter (MP) 103.

21. In view of the aforesaid, it can safely be crystallized in the case that the articles (which were seized) identified by the witnesses, has not been produced for exhibition and corroboration in Court, such test identification of the articles cannot be relied upon to convict the appellants and the said seizure of articles can be used for the purpose of corroboration with the witness in Court.

24. So far as test identification of articles Ex.P/6 is concerned, it was supported through the witness Mukesh (PW-2), Shaku @ Sagarbai (PW-4), Mamta Bai w/o Santosh (PW-7), Mamta Bai w/o Sunil (PW-12) and Sarju Bai @ Saku Bai (PW-17). In their testimony except Mukesh (PW-2) and Mamta Bai w/o Sunil (PW-12), none of them have identified their articles. The articles, which were identified by Mukesh (PW-2) and Mamta Bai w/o Sunil (PW-12) have not been produced in Court for exhibition and corroboration. In absence of producing the articles in Court to identify them by the said witnesses, test identification of the articles and testimony of Mukesh (PW-2) and Mamta Bai w/o Sunil (PW-12) cannot be relied upon to convict the appellants.

25. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is apparent that test identification of accused persons Ex.P/7 has not been proved in Court by the witnesses, however, it is not the substantive piece of evidence, which can form the basis of conviction. Similar is the position in the case of test identification of articles Ex.P/6. As discussed above, since lodging of the FIR till completion of the investigation, the prosecution witnesses have not named any of the accused persons, identifying them in Court; more so, characteristic of their identification has not been disclosed, thereby the Police may go on to conduct the investigation on the basis of those characteristic implicating the accused persons. However, merely having identification of the accused persons and articles by prosecution, which has not been proved, as discussed above, the conviction of the appellants, as directed by the learned trial Court, is unsustainable in law. In our considered opinion, the learned trial Court has committed an error of law to convict the appellants (Suraj Nath s/o Ratanlal Nath, Funda Nath s/o Amarnath, Shaku Nath s/o Heera Nath and Piru Nath s/o Nahar) in the present case. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court stands set side.