Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Test Identification Parade of Accused Known to Witnesses Holds No Value:  Orissa High Court Acquits Four in Dacoity Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent ruling, the Orissa High Court, led by Justice S.K. Sahoo, overturned the conviction of four individuals accused under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code for dacoity, emphasizing significant flaws in the Test Identification Parade (T.I. Parade) process and procedural inconsistencies.

 

The crux of the judgment revolves around the interpretation of Section 395 of the IPC, which defines dacoity. The court highlighted the necessity of the involvement of five or more persons for an act to qualify as dacoity. In this case, the charge and subsequent conviction under Section 395 IPC were set aside as the prosecution evidence indicated the participation of only four individuals.

The appellants were accused of committing dacoity on 13th June 2010, involving cash, mobiles, and other belongings. The case rested significantly on the Test Identification Parade (T.I. Parade) and the recoveries made thereafter. However, the judgment underscored procedural irregularities in the conduct and proof of the T.I. Parade, including the non-examination of the Magistrate who conducted it. This non-examination was deemed a severe blow to the prosecution, as it disabled the defense from challenging potential irregularities.

 

Regarding Dacoity Charge: The court observed that the framing of the charge under Section 395 IPC was unsustainable, as the evidence only pointed to the involvement of four individuals, not meeting the threshold for dacoity.

On Test Identification Parade (T.I. Parade): Justice Sahoo noted that the legal sanctity of the T.I. Parade was questionable due to the non-examination of the Magistrate who conducted it. This was critical since the T.I. Parade held significant weight in identifying the accused. Additionally, the court highlighted that identification parades are of little value if the accused are already known to the witnesses.

Recovery of Articles: The court also observed that the recovery of certain articles from the accused could not conclusively establish their guilt, especially when their identification during the T.I. Parade and in court was fraught with doubts.

Decision: The court acquitted all appellants under Section 395 IPC due to insufficient evidence and procedural lapses in the T.I. Parade. The bail bonds of the appellants were discharged.

Date of Judgment: 4th April 2024       

Baikuntha Bhoi, and Others v. State of Odisha

 

Latest Legal News