When Accused Refuse Judicial TIP Without Justification, Court May Rely on In-Court Identification Especially If No Prior Exposure Is Proven: Delhi High Court

"Refusal to Join TIP Without Just Cause Strengthens Prosecution ……In-court identification stands when no prior exposure is shown and accused refuse TIP — such refusal cannot be taken as a defence,"  Delhi High Court, through Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, delivered a reasoned and emphatic judgment, affirming the convictions of three men—Chandan, Neeraj, and Jaswinder Singh—in connection with a 2015 armed robbery involving use of deadly weapons inside a moving vehicle. The Court dismissed their criminal appeals and confirmed their guilt under Sections 392, 397, 411, and 34 of the IPC, and Sections 25, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act, reiterating long-standing legal positions on the use of deadly weapons, the evidentiary value of in-court identification, and the adverse inference arising from refusal to participate in Test Identification Parade (TIP).

The Court stated that:“The refusal of the accused to join TIP proceedings, when unexplained, raises an adverse inference. In the absence of any suggestion of prior exposure, in-court identification is reliable.”

In doing so, the Court upheld the central findings of the trial court, holding that the eyewitness accounts of the victims were consistent, corroborative, and unimpeached, and that recoveries of weapons and stolen property were credible and sufficiently proved.

"A Covered Weapon Is Still a Weapon — Display of Functional Pistol and Oversized Knife Meets Threshold of Section 397 IPC"

The Court was categorical in its analysis of what constitutes a "deadly weapon" under Section 397 IPC, especially in cases where the weapon is initially concealed. Referring to the evidence on record, the Court observed:

“Though the cartridge in itself is not a deadly weapon, it being shown along with the country-made pistol does fulfil the ingredients of Section 397 IPC by being a deadly weapon.”

A country-made pistol ("katta") recovered from Chandan's house was found to be functional upon ballistic testing. The knife used by Neeraj exceeded the statutory permissible dimensions under the Delhi notification, thus constituting a prohibited item under the Arms Act. The complainant had seen the cartridges during the commission of the offence, and despite the katta being initially wrapped in a cloth, its eventual visibility, functionality, and recovery removed any doubt about the applicability of Section 397 IPC.

“The robbery wasn't a momentary act but a coordinated, prolonged criminal enterprise”— Court affirms common intention under Section 34 IPC

The robbery took place on 25 July 2015, when victims Marut Sharma and Ankur Sharma boarded an Innova vehicle from Ashram Chowk. They were trapped inside with four accused men, held at gunpoint and knifepoint, and forcibly made to disclose ATM PINs. Over the next several hours, the accused stopped at various ATM kiosks and withdrew Rs. 50,000, while also snatching the victims' phones, cash, and gold jewellery.

Justice Ohri described the operation as one driven by shared intent, observing:

“Common intention is established from coordinated acts during prolonged confinement and ATM withdrawals.”

The accused drove the vehicle around, stopped at specific ATM kiosks, and ensured constant surveillance and control over the victims. Each had a distinct role—Chandan held a pistol, Neeraj brandished a knife, Jaswinder drove the vehicle—and yet the objective and execution were unified, satisfying the requirement of Section 34 IPC.

“Eyewitness testimonies are consistent, credible, and detailed — minor inconsistencies are immaterial in face of core narrative”

The primary prosecution witnesses, PW2 Marut Sharma and PW3 Ankur Sharma, were found to have deposed truthfully and with sufficient clarity. Both identified the accused in court and detailed the roles played by each.

Marut testified that:“The gun was initially wrapped in a handkerchief, but I later saw it clearly, along with two cartridges.”

Ankur corroborated the sequence and even described the gun as:

“Old, rusted, and black in colour… a huge knife was put to my throat.”

The Court rejected the defence’s attempt to cast doubt over alleged inconsistencies in the description of the weapons or the colour of the car. The judgment noted:

“Variations are trivial in nature… core prosecution story remained intact and consistent.”

“Recovery corroborates role — Weapons, jewellery, and phones traced to accused, no signs of fabrication or planting”

The Court analysed the recoveries made following the arrest of the accused:

• Chandan led to the recovery of the functional pistol used in the offence, as well as the clothes he wore on the night of the incident.

• Neeraj led to the recovery of the knife, victim’s mobile phone, cash, and wrist watches.

• Jaswinder led police to a gold chain, which the victim identified in a judicially conducted TIP.

The Court dismissed the suggestion that the recoveries were staged, observing:

“There is no reason to doubt the recoveries. No material was placed to suggest that the articles were planted or that any part of the chain of custody was broken.”

The Forensic Science Laboratory expert (PW8) confirmed that the seized pistol was in working condition. The knife dimensions, as per the prosecution exhibits, violated statutory norms, further supporting convictions under the Arms Act.

“Non-examination of ATM guards and public witnesses not fatal — Prosecution evidence otherwise cogent”

The defence argued that the non-examination of ATM security guards and lack of independent public witnesses weakened the prosecution’s case. The Court, however, relying on Gian Chand v. State of Haryana, held that:

“Mere non-joining of an independent witness where the evidence of the prosecution witnesses may be found to be cogent, convincing, creditworthy and reliable, cannot cast doubt on the version forwarded by the prosecution.”

The initial IO had also testified that the guard had no relevant information and no public witness was available at the scene. Hence, the omission was not material.

Convictions Affirmed, Bail Cancelled, Sentence to Be Served

The Delhi High Court upheld the convictions and directed that:

“The appellants Jaswinder and Neeraj are directed to be taken in custody to serve the remaining part of their sentence. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.”

All three appellants’ convictions were found legally sustainable, and the evidence marshalled by the prosecution was deemed credible, complete, and compelling. The case reiterates the principle that technical omissions or minor discrepancies cannot defeat the weight of consistent, trustworthy, and corroborated evidence in criminal trials involving serious offences.

Date of Decision: 17 November 2025