Introduction

The Patna High Court in Haresh Yadav v. State of Bihar has set aside the conviction of an appellant who had been sentenced by the Special Judge (SC/ST) for offences under Sections 324, 307, 452 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act, and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The case arose out of a 2003 midnight intrusion into the informant’s house, during which gunshot injuries were alleged. The conviction (29 March 2023) and sentence (5 April 2023) were overturned by Justice Alok Kumar Pandey on 22 August 2025.

This decision squarely addresses a recurring forensic and procedural problem in criminal trials: whether an accused who is unnamed in the First Information Report (FIR) and identified only as the “younger son” of a person in the village can be convicted without (a) a Test Identification Parade (TIP), (b) any physical description or identifying particulars in the FIR or depositions, and (c) examination of the Investigating Officer (IO) to prove crucial links such as seizure of the light source, conduct of TIP, or verification of identity.

The High Court answered in the negative, emphasizing that “dock identification” (identification in court) after a long lapse of time, without prior TIP and absent corroborating features, is unreliable. The Court also underscored that non-examination of the IO becomes fatal when it deprives the defense and the court of critical material concerning identification, light conditions, seizure, and investigative steps.

Parties:

• Appellant: Haresh Yadav (represented by Mr. Umesh Kumar Singh, Advocate)
• Respondent: State of Bihar (represented by Ms. Usha Kumari-1, A.P.P.)
• Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Pandey, Patna High Court

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences, and directed the immediate release of the appellant (if not wanted in any other case). The Court found that:

• The accused was unnamed in the FIR and identified only as the “younger son of late Naga Yadav” of Lalee ke Dera (Soa), without any physical description.
• No Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted; both key witnesses (PW-1 injured wife and PW-2 informant husband) admitted as much.
• The Investigating Officer was not examined, thereby depriving the court of evidence on identification steps, seizure of the torch/light source, and investigation into how the appellant’s name surfaced later.
• There were internal inconsistencies and evidentiary gaps, including the absence of an injury report for PW-2 (though he claimed a gunshot injury) and contradictions about the positions of the victims at the time of firing.
• In these circumstances, dock identification after a long gap lacked probative value, and the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Detailed Analysis

1) Factual Matrix and Evidentiary Appraisal

The prosecution case was that 3–4 armed intruders entered the informant’s house around 12:30 a.m. on 25/26 May 2003. The informant (PW-2) claimed to have recognized one intruder in torchlight as the younger son of a villager (late Naga Yadav) but did not know his name. The wife (PW-1) sustained multiple injuries; PW-2 claimed injury as well.

Key evidentiary points assessed by the Court:

• Unnamed accused in FIR, no physical descriptors: The FIR lacked any identifying features for any of the intruders. The only descriptor was relational (“younger son of late Naga Yadav”).
• No Test Identification Parade (TIP): Both PW-1 and PW-2 conceded no TIP was conducted. The appellant was identified in court years later.
• Non-examination of IO: Critical because the IO could have:
  • Explained how and when the appellant’s name surfaced,
  • Established what steps were taken to verify identity among five sons,
  • Proved seizure of the torch or presence/absence of other light sources, and
  • Clarified the place-of-occurrence issues and why other alleged intruders remained unidentified.
• Injury evidence mismatch: PW-7 (doctor) proved multiple gunshot-related injuries on PW-1, recorded as examined at 4:00 a.m. on 26.05.2008 (a date likely a typographical slip for 2003 given the incident date). However, there was no injury report on record for PW-2, contrary to his claim of gunshot injury.
• Witness contradictions and hostilities: PWs 3 to 6 turned hostile. PW-1’s cross-examination suggested she was behind PW-2 at firing, yet the FIR narrative had the first shot striking her chest, creating a positional inconsistency.
• “Relational” identification: PW-2 admitted late Naga Yadav had five sons but failed to explain how the appellant, specifically, was identified as the younger son. No age or distinguishing attributes were put on record.

2) Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The Court anchored its analysis in settled Supreme Court jurisprudence on identification evidence:

• Wahid v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2025) 3 SCC 341; 2025 SCC OnLine 234:
  The Supreme Court cautioned that when accused are unnamed in the FIR and the arrest narrative is suspect, courts must proceed carefully and insist on independent, reliable corroboration. Identification in court after a considerable delay, without TIP, attracts minimal weight. The Patna High Court applied this to a night-time incident with unnamed accused, concluding that post hoc dock identification without TIP was unsafe.
• Wakil Singh v. State of Bihar, 1981 (Supp) SCC 28:
  The Supreme Court held that in absence of any prior descriptive features of the culprits (stature, build, complexion, marks) and with delayed TIP, reliance on single-witness identification was unsafe. The Patna High Court drew a direct analogy: there were zero descriptors in the FIR or depositions here, no TIP, and a long gap before dock identification.
• Vishwanatha v. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1658:
  The Supreme Court questioned how the police zeroed in on a particular “Vishwanatha” when the name alone appeared in the FIR, especially where multiple persons bore that name. The duty lies on the prosecution to establish the precise basis of apprehension. The Patna High Court found this reasoning apposite: merely saying “younger son of late Naga Yadav” when there are five sons, without showing how the appellant was isolated as that person, is insufficient.

Together, these authorities guided the High Court to insist on robust identification protocols and corroboration before sustaining a conviction.

3) Legal Reasoning and Principles Applied

• Burden of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt:
  Criminal conviction demands proof beyond reasonable doubt on every essential element, including identity. The prosecution’s inability to establish who among several possible “younger sons” was the assailant, especially absent TIP or descriptive features, left reasonable doubt.
• Dock Identification vs. TIP:
  Dock identification, especially after years and without a prior TIP, is inherently weak. TIP serves to test and corroborate a witness’s memory under controlled, neutral conditions. The Court held that “dock identification has no meaning at all” in circumstances where the IO is not examined and no TIP exists.
• Non-examination of Investigating Officer (IO):
  While not invariably fatal, non-examination becomes critical where it causes prejudice — here, it deprived the court of the only official account capable of addressing:
  • How the appellant’s name came into the case post-FIR,
  • Whether the torch/light source was seized and tested,
  • What steps were taken to distinguish the appellant from the other sons, and
  • Whether any TIP or other identification procedure was conducted or considered.
  The Court found such prejudice present.
• Relational Identification Is Inadequate:
  Identification of an accused merely as “younger son of X” without physical traits, age hierarchy proof, or corroborative steps cannot ground a conviction. The prosecution produced no evidence proving that the appellant was in fact the youngest son, nor any distinguishing marks.
• Inconsistencies and Missing Links:
  The absence of PW-2’s injury report undermined his status as an injured witness. Contradictions about victim positioning during firing further eroded reliability. Hostile testimony by other witnesses left the case resting precariously on two inconsistent accounts.
• SC/ST Act Charge:
  The aggravated offence under Section 3(1)(xi) also fell with the failure to prove identity. Without credible proof that the appellant was one of the perpetrators, the special charge could not stand.

4) The New Clarification/Precedent from Patna High Court

The decision crystallizes and tightens the evidentiary threshold in Bihar for cases involving unnamed accused and delayed identification:

• Where the accused is unnamed in the FIR and identified only by relationship (e.g., “younger son of X”), conviction cannot be sustained without:
  • A credible TIP,
  • Physical description or identifying particulars recorded contemporaneously, and
  • IO testimony explaining the investigative path from a generic relational descriptor to a specific individual.
• Dock identification after a long lapse, without the above safeguards, will rarely suffice.
• Non-examination of the IO is fatal where it occludes critical identification and corroboration steps, causing clear prejudice to the accused.

5) Impact and Implications

This ruling will likely shape investigative and prosecutorial practices in Bihar and beyond:

• For Police:
  • Record descriptive features of suspects promptly in the FIR or earliest statements (height, build, complexion, scars, voice, gait, clothing, etc.).
  • Conduct TIPs expeditiously, especially where accused are unnamed or barely described.
  • Document and seize light sources (torches, electricity details) in night incidents; note visibility conditions meticulously.
  • Where identification is relational (e.g., “X’s younger son”), verify and record the family tree, ages, and distinguishing features; consider a line-up including all potential matches.
• For Prosecutors:
  • Do not rely solely on dock identification; seek corroboration via TIP and other independent evidence.
  • Ensure examination of the IO; anticipate that non-examination in identification-centric cases can be fatal.
  • Produce complete medical records for all alleged injured persons; gaps (as with PW-2 here) can materially weaken serious charges like Section 307 IPC.
• For Defense:
  • Challenge delayed, uncorroborated dock identification, absence of TIP, and lack of descriptive particulars.
  • Highlight investigative omissions (non-seizure of torch, no proof of light, no family hierarchy proof) as sources of reasonable doubt.
• Substantive Law:
  • Section 307 IPC charges will be scrutinized where injury evidence is incomplete or contradicted.
  • SC/ST Act charges do not override the need for strict proof of identity; failure on identity collapses all counts premised on the accused’s participation.

6) Nuanced Observations

• Place of Occurrence and Occurrence Per Se:
  The Court accepted that PW-1 suffered injuries consistent with gunfire, indicating an occurrence did take place. However, it stressed that identity of the perpetrator remained unproved. The IO’s non-examination, which could have clarified the exact locus and corroborative details, contributed to the acquittal.
• Chronology Anomaly:
  The doctor’s testimony dates the examination at 26.05.2008. This likely is a typographical error for 2003, matching the incident date, but even assuming such an error, the Court treated the injury on PW-1 as proved; the identity gap remained decisive.
• Hostile Witnesses:
  With PWs 3 to 6 turning hostile, the case rested on PW-1 and PW-2. In such a posture, procedural rigor on identification becomes indispensable; its absence here was terminal.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Test Identification Parade (TIP):
  A pre-trial procedure where a witness is asked to identify a suspect from a line-up of similar-looking individuals. It tests the witness’s memory under neutral conditions and provides corroboration for later in-court identification.
• Dock Identification:
  Identification of the accused by a witness in the courtroom. Its value is significantly enhanced if preceded by a fair TIP; without TIP and after long delays, it is considered weak.
• Investigating Officer (IO):
  The police officer who leads the investigation. The IO’s testimony often ties the chain of evidence, explaining how suspects were identified, what was seized, and which steps were taken — crucial in identification-centric cases.
• “Beyond Reasonable Doubt”:
  The high standard of proof in criminal cases. If reasonable doubts remain — particularly as to identity — the accused must be acquitted.
• Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder):
  Requires proof of intention or knowledge to cause death, manifested by overt acts (e.g., firing a gun). Injuries and surrounding circumstances are key. Inconsistencies and missing medical proof weaken such charges.
• Section 452 IPC (House-trespass after preparation for hurt/assault):
  Involves criminal trespass into a dwelling with preparation to cause hurt or assault. Proof of identity of the intruder is central to conviction.
• Section 324 IPC (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons):
  Penalizes causing hurt by dangerous means. Again, identity and injury proof are essential.
• Section 27 Arms Act:
  Punishes use of arms in contravention of the Act. Requires identification of the user and the act of use; recovery and forensic corroboration strengthen such cases.
• Section 3(1)(xi), SC/ST Act:
  An aggravated offence relating to assault or use of force to any woman belonging to SC/ST with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty. Regardless of the section’s ingredients, identity of the perpetrator remains foundational.
• Fardbeyan:
  A statement recorded by police, often forming the basis of the FIR in some jurisdictions. Its contents and omissions (e.g., lack of physical description) can significantly affect the case.
• Benefit of Doubt:
  A principle mandating acquittal where the prosecution’s case leaves reasonable doubts about guilt, especially on identity or essential facts.

Conclusion

The Patna High Court’s decision in Haresh Yadav v. State of Bihar is a robust reaffirmation — and in the Bihar context, a tightening — of identification jurisprudence. The Court held that:

• When an accused is unnamed in the FIR and identified only by relationship, a conviction cannot stand without a properly conducted TIP, contemporaneous physical descriptions, and IO testimony linking the relational descriptor to the specific accused.
• Dock identification after years, without these safeguards, is unsafe.
• Non-examination of the IO is fatal where it conceals essential investigative steps and causes prejudice on identification issues.

Practically, the ruling signals to investigators and prosecutors that identity must be established with rigor — via timely TIPs, careful documentation of descriptive features, and production of the IO — particularly in night incidents and cases with unnamed accused. For defense counsel, it underscores the criticality of scrutinizing identification procedures and challenging dock identification unsupported by earlier, neutral tests.

The key takeaway is clear: relational labels and belated courtroom pointing, without corroborative identification protocols and investigative testimony, cannot meet the demanding standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment thus strengthens procedural fairness and reliability in criminal adjudication, ensuring that convictions rest on robust, verifiable identification evidence rather than conjecture or hazy memory.