The Allahabad High Court last week acquitted two men in connection with a 1978 robbery case, observing that the alleged recovery of a blanket and mosquito net from them did not furnish strong corroborative evidence, particularly since the articles were readily available in the market and bore no distinctive identifying marks.

The Court also found deficiencies in the identification evidence, including the delayed conduct of the test identification parade and the non-production of the torch allegedly used by witnesses to identify the accused.

A bench of Justice Abdul Shahid thus allowed a criminal appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge (DAA), Kanpur Dehat, in 1985.

The appellants had been convicted under Section 392 IPC (Punishment for Robbery) and sentenced to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1,000 each.

Case in brief

According to the prosecution's case, the incident took place during the night of August 11/12, 1978. The complainant had alleged that 4 miscreants entered his brother's house and fled after committing robbery.

The FIR listed several articles as having been looted, including 3 blankets, 1 white mosquito net, clothes, jewelry, a wrist watch, a transistor, ₹700 in cash, and a passbook, among other articles.

The prosecution alleged that the accused were identified in the light of torches and a lantern. During the investigation, one blanket and one mosquito net were allegedly recovered from the appellants.

Challenging their conviction, the accused-appellants argued that only two allegedly stolen items, a blanket and a mosquito net, had been recovered from them and that such articles were easily available in the market.

It was further contended that neither any weapon nor any other incriminating material had been recovered from them.

Furthermore, it was also submitted that evidence of identification of the miscreants in the test identification parade is not substantive evidence and conviction cannot be based solely on it.

High Court's observations

At the outset, the Court noted that the prosecution case was based substantially upon the identification of the appellants by the prosecution witnesses and the alleged recovery of one mosquito net and one blanket.

The Court noted that although two prosecution witnesses claimed they had identified the appellants in torchlight, the torch allegedly used by the witnesses was not produced before the Court.

The Court further noted that the prosecution witnesses had not given any distinctive physical description of the assailants at the earliest opportunity. The statement of another witness was also recorded after a considerable delay, which cast doubt on his presence and identification.

The Court also took note of the considerable delay in holding the test identification parade (TIP).

The TIP was conducted several months after the incident and the arrest of the appellants. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay and considering the possibility that the accused may have been exposed to the witnesses before the identification proceedings, the Court held that the identification evidence could not safely be treated as sufficient to sustain the conviction by itself.

On the alleged recovery, the Court held that the blanket and mosquito net did not furnish strong corroborative evidence.

"The alleged recovery of the blanket and mosquito net also does not furnish strong corroborative evidence, particularly when the witnesses themselves admitted that such articles were readily available in the market and no distinctive identifying mark was shown".

The Court thus found that the alleged recovery did not furnish strong corroborative evidence. It further considered the identification evidence, the delayed test identification parade and the alleged recovery cumulatively. It concluded that they did not establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellants were accordingly entitled to the benefit of the doubt and the Court set aside their conviction and acquitted them of all charges.

Case Title - Chhotey And Another vs State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 596

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 596

Click Here To Read/Download Order