AIROnline 2025 SC 89

Supreme Court Of India

(From : AIROnline 2018 CHH 1100)

Hon'ble Judge(s): Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Manoj Misra , JJ

(A) Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.395, S.397— Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.9— Dacoity - Identity of accused - Allegation that accused stopped bus at gunpoint and then robbed all passengers after beating them , with help of four other co-accused already travelling in bus - Witnesses who participated in TIP were not examined during trial, rendering TIP report inadmissible for corroboration or contradiction - Only substantive evidence in respect of identification of accused was dock identification by a police personnel - Said witness could not satisfactorily explain his movement in bus and was not included in TIP process despite having seen accused before the incident - Dock identification by a solitary witness, that too a police personnel, failed to inspire confidence - Prosecution failed to prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt - Accused was entitled to acquittal. AIROnline 2018 CHH 1100-ReversedAIR 1972 SC 102-FollowedAIR 1988 SC 345-Followed (Para 14 15 16 17) (B) Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.395— Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.156— Dacoity - Appreciation of evidence - Arrest of accused - Prosecution case rested primarily on testimony of a police constable, who claimed to ....