Reaffirming the Evidentiary Standards for Identification in Dacoity Cases: Supreme Court’s Emphasis on “Best Evidence”

I. Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in VINOD @ NASMULLA v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (2025 INSC 220), revisits the principles governing criminal identification in serious offences such as dacoity under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case involves an appeal against concurrent findings of guilt by the Sessions Court and the High Court of Chhattisgarh. The appellant, Vinod @ Nasmulla, was convicted of participating in a bus dacoity at night and using a country-made pistol to threaten the driver.

Several key legal issues surfaced in this matter, most notably surrounding the reliability of the test identification parade (TIP) as corroborative evidence, the significance of calling all essential witnesses (“best evidence”), and the standard of proof required relating to the recovery of incriminating articles.

The parties to the case included:

• Appellant: Vinod @ Nasmulla (accused of committing dacoity and possessing a country-made pistol)
• Respondent: The State of Chhattisgarh

Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction, underscoring the importance of consistent, reliable identification procedures and corroborative evidence in criminal prosecutions. This judgment reaffirms that TIP is a tool for corroboration rather than substantive evidence and highlights that withholding vital prosecution witnesses without adequate explanation can undermine a conviction.

II. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal brought by the appellant and acquitted him of charges under Section 395 read with Section 397 IPC and Section 25(1)(b)(a) of the Arms Act. The key points leading to the acquittal included:

1. Unreliable Identification: The main prosecution witnesses who had participated in the TIP (i.e., the bus driver, the conductor, and the cleaner) were not examined at trial. The only eyewitness who identified the appellant during the trial was a police constable (PW-9), who did not participate in the TIP despite allegedly having been present during the incident.
2. Questionable Arrest and Recovery: The manner of arrest purportedly lacked credibility. According to the prosecution, the appellant was apprehended around 3:00 a.m. with a loaded country-made pistol, yet no attempt was made by him to flee or use the weapon, and no independent corroboration of this moment existed beyond the testimony of a single police constable (PW-5).
3. Lack of Physical Evidence: There was no recovery of any looted property from the appellant. Although a country-made pistol was allegedly recovered from him, no ballistic or forensic link was established with the cartridges fired or recovered at the scene.
4. Delay in Seizure Memo: The seizure memo preparation took place several hours after the alleged arrest, casting further doubt on the veracity of the police version.

In light of these shortcomings, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

The Court reiterated established doctrines from significant earlier judgments regarding the value of test identification parades:

• Rameshwar Singh v. State Of Jammu and Kashmir (1971) 2 SCC 715: This three-Judge Bench decision underscores that a TIP under Section 9 of the Evidence Act is not substantive evidence but merely a means to corroborate identification in court. If the witness who identified the accused during the TIP is not examined during the trial, the TIP holds no value for substantiating identity.
• Hari Nath and Another v. State of U.P. (1988) 1 SCC 14: Reaffirming that the dock identification by a witness needs corroboration through TIP, especially if the witness’s recollection may be influenced or if the accused was previously known to them.
• Iqbal and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 623: Emphasizes the importance of clarity in how identification is conducted to avoid the possibility of “accidental or false” identification.

Through these precedents, the Supreme Court stressed that the best practice in suspect identification is a properly conducted TIP, used to confirm any subsequent dock identification. In the absence of the primary identifying witnesses or corroborative physical evidence, reliance on a single, potentially biased identification by a police witness is disfavored.

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Significance of “Best Evidence”: The Court highlighted the importance of calling the bus driver, conductor, and cleaner—key figures in the TIP conducted during investigations—to the witness stand. Their non-examination remained unexplained, depriving the defense of opportunities to cross-examine the persons who originally identified the appellant. This omission undermined the prosecution’s case.

2. Corroborative Value of Test Identification Parades (TIP): While the prosecution established that a TIP was held, merely putting that on record without producing the actual witnesses who carried out the identification made such evidence insufficient. A TIP is primarily a corroborative tool—it must be validated by an eyewitness who testifies in court to that effect.

3. Lack of Linked Forensic Evidence: Although the police purportedly recovered a country-made pistol and empty cartridges, there was no convincing forensic or ballistic linkage between that weapon and the crime scene or the injuries caused during the dacoity. The Court found the chain of custody and the timing of the seizure memo questionable.

4. Dubious Arrest Procedure: The narrative of arrest was found suspicious because it seemed improbable that a lone police constable could successfully apprehend an armed individual without any confrontation or assistance. The delayed preparation of the seizure memo (nine hours after apprehension) added to the doubts.

5. Benefit of Doubt: Given these identified flaws, the Court held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. A cardinal principle of criminal law is that the prosecution must convince the court of an accused’s guilt “beyond reasonable doubt,” which it failed to do here.

C. Impact

This decision significantly influences future proceedings in the following ways:

• Reiteration of TIP Standards: Investigative agencies must conduct and record TIPs meticulously, and offer in court the very witnesses who participated in identification to maintain the evidentiary chain.
• Importance of Calling All Essential Witnesses: Prosecutors must not withhold crucial witnesses, especially those forming the core of the prosecution’s theory. Failure to present the “best evidence” may lead to acquittals, as any doubts about the identification can damage the prosecution’s case irreparably.
• Enhanced Scrutiny of Arrest Procedures: Courts may look more carefully at the circumstances surrounding the apprehension of suspects in high-stakes cases (like dacoity). Unexplained gaps or implausible narratives will be viewed with skepticism.
• Forensic Collaboration: This judgment encourages investigators to utilize forensic or ballistic linkages to strengthen the nexus between recovered arms and the offence committed. Absent such linkage, the probative value of the recovered arms is diminished.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Test Identification Parade (TIP): A legal procedure conducted during the investigation stage to confirm if a witness can correctly identify a suspect previously unknown to them. It aims to ensure that future court identification is reliable and not influenced by suggestions or chance.
• Substantive Vs. Corroborative Evidence: “Substantive evidence” directly proves a fact; in identification cases, the witness’s testimony in court is considered substantive. “Corroborative evidence,” such as a TIP, merely supports or strengthens the primary evidence but, on its own, cannot sustain a conviction.
• Burden of Proof: The prosecution in criminal proceedings must establish the accused’s guilt “beyond reasonable doubt.” If any significant doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted.
• Arms Act Offence: Section 25 of the Arms Act criminalizes unauthorized possession or use of firearms and imposes penalties. However, possession alone should be clearly proven, linking the weapon to the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

V. Conclusion

VINOD @ NASMULLA v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH highlights crucial evidentiary safeguards in serious criminal trials. The Court underscored that conviction for dacoity, particularly under Sections 395 and 397 IPC, cannot rest on uncorroborated testimony and doubtful recovery processes. Where the best available identification evidence was not produced in court and forensic linkage was absent, the Court found significant gaps in the prosecution’s case.

As a result, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction, reaffirming that test identification parades serve only as corroborative tools. Without the supportive presence of core witnesses and corroborative material evidence, dock identification by a single—and potentially biased—witness alone lacks the strength to meet the high burden of reasonable doubt. Going forward, this judgment acts as a reminder to investigative agencies and prosecutors that thorough investigation, proper evidentiary procedure, and the presentation of key witnesses are imperative for the just determination of guilt.