Chitranjan Sao … v. …
Case Details
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 243 of 2018 Chitranjan Sao …. Versus …… Petitioner The State of Jharkhand …… Opp. Party ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner For the State : Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, A. P. P. …… JUDGEMNT 12/04.03.2024 The present Criminal Revision No. 243 of 2018 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment dated 31.07.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2009 by Ms. Babita Prasad, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro has allowed the appeal in part by dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner-Chitranjan Sao and other co-convict namely Rajiv Nandan @ Raju Patal, by upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code on the one hand and on the other hand, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro has allowed the appeal filed by the co-convict Lakhan Mahato and Ratanlal Sikdar by giving benefit of doubt and acquitted them from the charge of Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. Although vide judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.08.2009, Smt. Kusum Kumari, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro has convicted the four persons namely Rajiv Nandan @ Raju Patal, Ratan Lal Sikdar, Chitranjan Sao and Lakhan Mahto in connection with Balidih P. S. Case No. 57 of 2002 corresponding to G. R. No. 463 of 2002 [T. R. No. 456 (A) of 2009] for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal -2- Code and sentenced them to undergo S. I. for a period of three (3) years. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that F.I.R of this case was lodged on 15.05.2002 on the basis of written report of one Ram Awadh Singh. It has been stated that on 15.05.2002 at about 12.45 PM after withdrawing Rs. 30,000/- from S.B.I. Balidih while he alongwith the money, which he had kept in a black hand bag, was going to Balidih More to catch a Trekker and was at some distance away from the main road one Black Rajdoot Motorcycle stopped beside him, and one person already present there at the point of pistol forced the informant to sit on the motorcycle and he himself also sat on the Motorcycle behind him and they took him on kachcha road which was going towards Government High School and there snatched his bag, and in the meantime one more boy also came to that place. It is further stated that on the request of the informant, the three miscreants spared his life and they all went towards Balidih by their Motorcycle. It is further stated that in addition to cash, pass books, keys and other documents were also kept in the said bag. 3. On the basis of written application submitted by the informant –Ram Awadh Singh, the police instituted Baladih P. S. Case No. 57 of 2002 for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code against three unknown miscreants on 15.05.2002. 4. The police, after making investigation, had submitted
Facts
charge sheet firstly against three persons namely Lakhan Mahto, Chitranjan Sao (i.e. the revisionist-petitioner) and Rajiv Nandan @ Raju Patal by keeping the investigation pending against one Ratan Lal Sikdar before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro and learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro had taken cognizance against the petitioner and two others under Section 392 of the -3- Indian Penal Code on 17.10.2002. Later on the police had also submitted charge sheet against one Ratan Lal Sikdar on 16.12.2002. 5. After supplying the police paper to the accused persons including the petitioner, charges were framed for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner- Chitranjan Sao and also against co-convict, Rajiv Nandan @ Raju Patal and also against Lakhan Mahto and Ratan Lal Sikdar, who were acquitted by the learned Appellate Court below on
Legal Reasoning
effect thereof were considered by this Court in paras 8 and 9 as under: (SCC pp. 335-36) “8. Apart from this infirmity we further find that Shiv Shankar was not put up for test identification parade promptly. The identification parade has been held three weeks after his arrest and no explanation has been offered for the delay in holding the test identification parade. There is, therefore, room for doubt as to whether the delay in holding the identification parade was in order to enable the identifying witnesses to see him in the police lock-up or in the jail premises and make a note of his features. 9:- Over and above all these things there remains the fact that a sufficiently long interval of time had elapsed between the date of occurrence when the witnesses had seen Shiv Shankar for a few minutes and the date of the test identification parade. It is, no doubt, true that all the three witnesses had correctly identified Shiv Shankar at the identification parade but it has to be borne in mind that nearly 4 months had elapsed during the interval. It is relevant to mention here that neither in Ext. Kha-1 nor in their statements during investigation, the eyewitnesses have given any descriptive particulars of Shiv Shankar. While deposing before the Sessions Judge they have stated that Shiv Shankar was a tall person and had “sallow” complexion. If it is on account of these features the witnesses were able to identify Shiv Shankar at the identification parade, they would have certainly mentioned about -19- them at the earliest point of time because their memory would have been fresh then. Thus in the absence of any descriptive particulars of Shiv Shankar in Ext. Kha-1 or in the statements of witnesses during investigation, it will not be safe and proper to act upon the identification of Shiv Shankar by the three witnesses at the identification parade and hold that he was one of the assailants of Ram Babu. As pointed out in Muthuswami v. State of Madras [Muthuswami v. State of Madras, 1951 SCC 1020 : AIR 1954 SC 4 : 1954 Cri LJ 236] where an identification parade was held about 2½ months after the occurrence it would not be safe to place reliance on the identification of the accused by the eyewitnesses. In another case Mohd. Abdul Hafeez v. State of A.P. [Mohd. Abdul Hafeez v. State of A.P., (1983) 1 SCC 143 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 139 : AIR 1983 SC 367] it was held that where the witnesses had not given any description of the accused in the first information report, their identification of the accused at the sessions trial cannot be safely accepted by the court for awarding conviction to the accused. In the present case there was a long interval of nearly 4 months before the test identification parade was held and it is difficult to accept that in spite of this interval of time the witnesses were able to have a clear image of the accused in their minds and identify him correctly at the identification parade.” 33. Moreover, even confessional statement of accused Rajiv Nandan @ Raju Patel has not been brought on record by the I.O. from which the petitioner was remanded. 34. It is further evident that none of the witnesses namely Anish Kumar Sao, Narayan Sahani and Ranjit Singh from the first place of occurrence and Manoj Kumar Tudu, Anand Soren, Sanjay Kumar Bharti, Deepak Manjhi, Vinod Kumar Singh, Surendra Manjhi, Riyaz Ahmed and Amul Trikey from the second place of occurrence near the Raj Samposit Vidhalaya, had supported the occurrence, which is evident from the cross-examination of the -20- I.O. at para-19, 20, 21 and 22 respectively and even I.O. has gone to the extent by stating that some labourers were working in under- construction house. 35. It is further evident that IO had not examined the principal of Polytechnic College, who had handed over the cheque of Rs. 30,000/- to the informant for bringing the amount and even I.O. had not examined the Bank Officials or any person of the Bank or verified the vouchers to show recovery of the amount of Rs. 30,000/- from the Bank by the informant. 36. Even it has come from the evidence of the learned Judicial Magistrate i.e. P.W.-2 that marking was given as Mark-I and Mark-II at the first TIP on 18.09.2002 when the accused person Rajiv Nandan @ Raju Patel was identified by the informant whereas the accused Lakhan Mahato was not identified. Even it is evident from the evidence of learned Judicial Magistrate i.e. P.W.-3 and TIP Chart marked as Ext.-4, it is evident that Mark-1 was mentioned in the hand of the petitioner before his TIP Parade. It is evident that even TIP was conducted by marking the accused. 37. It is further submitted that except the allegation of committing loot of Rs. 30,000/-, there is no documentary evidence to show that Rs. 30,000/- was withdrawn from the bank by the informant. 38. It is further evident that although FIR was lodged on 15.05.2002, even the confession of the accused Rajiv Nandan @ Raju Patel recorded on 10.08.2002, but the TIP of the petitioner was conducted on 05.10.2002 i.e. even after delay of 24 days of their alleged involvement. 39. In view of the delay in conducting TIP of the petitioner of more than 24 days and also in view of the fact that I.O. had himself admitted that none of the witnesses neither at the first place of occurrence nor at the second place of occurrence, had -21- supported the story of the informant as made out in the FIR for the alleged dacoity of Rs. 30,000/- nor there is any recovery from the petitioner and the co-accused Lakhan Mahato, who was allegedly driving the Motorcycle and co-convict- Ratan Lal Sikdar, who had also arrived at the place of occurrence, have been acquitted by the learned Appellate Court below, which is Court of the view that conviction of the petitioner under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code is not proper. 40. Therefore, in view of the above, the judgment dated 31.07.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2009 by Ms. Babita Prasad, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro and the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.08.2009, Smt. Kusum Kumari, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in connection with Balidih P. S. Case No. 57 of 2002 corresponding to G. R. No. 463 of 2002 [T. R. No. 456 (A) of 2009] are set aside. 41. The petitioner-Chitranjan Sao is acquitted from the charges for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and the petitioner-Chitranjan Sao is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 42. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision No. 243 of 2018 is allowed. Let the entire Original Lower Court Records be sent to the learned Court below at once by the office. Kamlesh/ (Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Arguments
28.07.2003 by Smt. Kusum Kumari, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro and to which and to which the petitioner and other persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution in support of its case got examined four (4) witnesses, who are as follows:- (i) P.W.-1 is Ram Awadh Singh, i.e. the informant, (ii) P.W.-2 is Tarun Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, (iii) P.W.-3 is Syambhu, learned Judicial Magistrate and (iv) P.W.-4 is Nand Kishore i.e. I.O. of this case, 7. The prosecution in support of its case got marked the followed documents as Exhibits:- (i) Ext.-1 is written application, (ii) Ext.-2 is TIP chart in respect of the accused- Rajiv Nandan @ Raju Patal and Lakhan Mahto prepared by Sri Tarun Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro on 18.09.2002, (iii) Ext.-3 is another TIP chart in respect of the accused- Chitranjan Sao prepared by Sri Syambhu, learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro on 05.10.2002, (iv) Ext.-4 is the formal FIR, (v) Ext.-5 is the charge sheet dated 17.10.2002, (vi) Ext.-6 supplementary charge is sheet dated -4- 16.12.2002 submitted against Ratan Lal Sikdar. 8. Thereafter, the petitioner and other co-accused were examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. on 02.06.2006 by the learned Court below and to which they denied the circumstances put forth before them. 9. The petitioner in support of his case, neither examined any witnesses nor got exhibited any documents as Exhibits. 10. Thereafter, Smt. Kusum Kumari, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro considering the matter, had convicted four persons namely Rajiv Nandan @ Raju Patal, Ratan Lal Sikdar, Chitranjan Sao and Lakhan Mahto for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.08.2009 and sentenced them to undergo S.I. for a period of three (3) years. 11. Thereafter, the petitioner along with three others had filed Criminal Appeal No. 101 of 2009, however, Ms. Babita Prasad, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro vide judgment dated 31.07.2015 has allowed the appeal in part by dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner-Chitranjan Sao and other co-convict namely Rajiv Nandan @ Raju Patal, by upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, however, the learned Appellate Court below has acquitted the co-convict Lakhan Mahato and Ratanlal Sikdar from the charge of Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and hence, this present Criminal Revision Application has been filed. 12. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 13. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law. It is submitted that -5- there is vital contradiction in the evidences of the prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that there is no eye witness of the occurrence except the informant and conviction of the petitioner has been based upon the testimony of the informant. It is submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession of this petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has remained in custody from 21.08.2002 to 05.09.2003 i.e. for around one year and fourteen days during trial and again surrendered and granted bail on 17.08.2007 and after dismissal of the criminal appeal by the learned Appellate Court, he is in custody since January, 2018 and he was allowed to release on bail vide order dated 12.06.2018 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and therefore, he remained in custody for further five month and thus, the petitioner has remained in custody for around one (1) and half (1/2) years and as such, lenient view may be taken in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that TIP was conducted after delay of five months. It is submitted that the P.W.-2, Tarun Kumar and P.W.-3, Syambhu are the Judicial Magistrate and they are formal witness. It is submitted that P.W.-4, Nand Kishore is the I.O. of this case, who has submitted false charge sheet and has made improper and defective investigation and hence, the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below may be set aside in the interest of justice and the petitioner may be acquitted and this Criminal Revision may be allowed. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed and has submitted that the judgments and order passed by the learned Courts below are fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that this Criminal Revision is devoid of merit. It is submitted that learned court below has considered all the materials available on records while convicting the petitioner and other co-convicted Rajiv Nandan @ -6- Raju Patel. It is submitted that P.W.-1, Ram Awadh Singh is the informant of this case, who has identified the petitioner during TIP. It is submitted that P.W.-2, Tarun Kumar and P.W.-3, Syambhu are the Judicial Magistrate and they have corroborated TIP and identification of the accused persons. It is submitted that P.W.-4, Nand Kishore is the I.O. of this case and he has supported and corroborated the prosecution case and has submitted the charge sheet against them and as such, there is no illegality committed by the learned Court below by convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal code and this Criminal Revision Application may be dismissed. 15. Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the submission of both the sides. 16. From perusal of the FIR, it would appear that while the informant namely Ram Awadh Singh working as Laboratory Assistant, was returning with Rs. 30,000/- after withdrawing the amount from the Bank in the Black Colour handbag and while he was coming to main road after taking money from the State Bank of India around 12.45 P.M. then one Rajdoot motorcycle of black colour came near him and one person was standing prior there pointed pistol upon him and forced him to sit on the Motorcycle and he sat himself behind and took him near the road of Samposit High School at lonely place and asked him to handover the money, otherwise he will fire at him. In the meantime, they arrived near Hotel situated near main road and one boy wearing Lungi Shirt came there and caught hold of their collar and threatened to kill him and thereafter all the three miscreants fled away on the said Rajdoot Motorcycle towards Balidih. He has described the description of the miscreants in detail by speaking that one boy was driving the Motorcycle and who was around 5 and 1/2 Ft. wheatish complexion and the boy behind him wearing white -7- yellow shirt and was of fair complexion and height around 5 and 1/2 Ft. and lean and thin student and both were wearing pant and 3rd miscreant, who had arrived at the time of snatching the money was wearing Lungi and was heavy and short height and wheatish complexion and all the three miscreants were aged between 25-30 years of age. He further mentioned that the miscreant wearing Lungi, who had caught hold of his collar look like a mistry. Thus, it is evident from the FIR that he has named three unknown miscreants for looting the amount of Rs. 30,000/-, works certain description. 17. So far as the prosecution witnesses are concerned, P.W. -1 is Ram Awadh Singh, who is informant himself and who stated during his evidence that the occurrence took place on 15.05.2002 at around 12.45 P. M. and on that date, he was posted as Laboratory Assistant and on that date, he had gone to withdraw the money from the SBI belonging to Community Poletechnique, Baladih at around 11.30 A.M. and for which a cheque of Rs. 30,000/- was given by the Principal and money was withdrawn at around 12.30 P.M. and entire money was of three bundles of hundred rupees denomination. As soon as he went to catch the Trekar after withdrawing the amount and keeping the hand bag of black colour and arrived near Baladih More and at that time, there were four persons standing below the tree and he also stood there and where one person riding with black colour Motorcycle came near him and thereafter one person standing there prior to his arrival pointed pistol at him and asked him to sit on the Motorcycle and out of fear, he sat on the Motorcycle and person pointed pistol at him. Thereafter Motorcyclist persons under the instruction of persons sitting behind him took the motorcycle to the school at Balidih at lonely ditch and thereafter both the persons started assaulting him and threatening him of dire consequences -8- and threatened to kill him and upon which, he asked as to why they will kill him and then in the meantime, one person snatched his bag, who had pointed pistol at him and in the meantime, one person came from Main Road, Balidih and has started gagging his neck and threatened him of dire consequences and due to which the informant started raising alarm. Thereafter, three accused persons snatched away his bag and fled away. He also stated that apart from amount kept in the bag, they had also looted his personal passbook, key of his house and personal papers. Thereafter the informant wen to main road by raising alarm and where some persons got boarded him on Tractor and from there he went to Balidih P. S. and informed them in writing about the occurrence. He has also described the appearance (Hulia) fair complexion of the miscreants in the same manner as disclosed in the FIR. On the basis of appearance, TIP was conducted at Chas Jail and where he has identified all the miscreants and TIP was held in the presence of learned Magistrate and Jail Officer and he had gone to jail twice for TIP and in first TIP, he has identified two miscreants and first TIP, he has identified one miscreant, who had pointed pistol on him and whose name is Rajiv Nandan @ Rajiv Patel. However, in the 2nd TIP, he has identified the miscreant, who had pressed his name and whose name is Chitranjan Sao i.e. the petitioner and money was snatched by the miscreant, who has pointed pistol at him. He has proved his signature on the fardbeyan marked as Ext. -1. He further identified the miscreants in Court also and stated that Lakhan Mahto was driving the Motorcycle and the person, who snatched his bag near the Hotel from the place of occurrence was the accused- Ratan Lal Sikdar and he went to the place of occurrence and has remained stood there and the informant claimed to have identified to the accused persons in Court. He further stated that Ratan Lal Sikar came lastly at the -9- place of occurrence and has also stated that person, who caught his neck is the 4th person and arrived 15-20 minutes earlier to Ratan Lal. 18. During cross-examination, he stated that it was summer day and the place of occurrence was far from lonely place and he cannot say the number of market at Balidih more. He has shown ignorance that Daroga Ji i.e. I. O. has apprehended several boys and had not asked him to identify them. He further stated that he had not identified any two persons in TIP except two miscreants and he had seen the accused persons first time in T.I.P. He has described the boundary of place from where he was forced to sat on motorcycle and has stated that there is no road of Government in East side and there is Jaina More-Ramgarh More in the west side. There was R. K. Saloon in the north side and the Bank and field in South. There was a temple near the Bank More. He also stated that when he was coming back from Bank after withdrawing the money, some persons were present, but he cannot say their numbers. The place from which the bag was snatched, he was cannot say its boundary as he was very nervous. He had not met the police and had no discussion after instituting the case. He had gone to TIP on instruction of Principal, but he was not aware as to whether he had received notice from the Court or not ? However, there was no police with him. After arriving at Jail in Chas, he was called inside and he was identified by the Jail Officer. Though, he has talked with the Magistrate for what work he came, but he had not instructed him outside the jail. He had not read the news of occurrence in the Newspaper. He had no opportunity to see the face of the accused persons in TIP. He has denied the suggestion that no occurrence took place. He also admitted that neither any paper nor book nor amount was returned to him. He has denied the suggestion that in order to misappropriate the money, he has taken -10- the police into confidence and he has instituted a false case against the accused persons. 19. He also stated that the place of occurrence from the Bank, where the money was snatched, will be around two kilometres and between these places, there are several colonies, but he cannot tell the name of any colony. However, he has raised alarm at the time of snatching the money. He had not raised any alarm while he was going back to the Motorcycle on way because the person sitting behind him had pointed him pistol. He cannot say the number of Motorcycle. He is not aware of the person, who boarded him on the Trekker and he cannot say his description and he cannot say the description of Trekker’s Driver. He was wearing watch on the date of occurrence. However, he cannot say, who boarded him on Trekker and who had given fare as he was nervous, but the person standing in TIP of similar age and they were of same size, but the said persons were of different complexion. He further stated that all the miscreants wearing clothes of one colour i.e. white clothes in the 1st TIP and in the 2nd TIP they all were wearing white clothes. 20. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W. -1, Ram Awadh Singh, it is evident that amount of Rs. 30,000/- was snatched, which was withdrawn by him from the Bank by three miscreants and he had failed to identify all the miscreants in the Court with certain specific details. However, he has not disclosed the name of persons, who boarded in the Trekker and he even could not disclose the number of Trekker from which he arrived at the police station and could not say even the name of Trekker Driver. Thus, the evidence of P.W.-1, Ram Awadh Singh will be seen after the evidence of I.O. -11- 21. P. W.-2 is Tarun Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro and it has been stated by the learned Magistrate that while he was posted at Civil Court, Bokaro as Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro, he conducted the TIP in in Sub-Jail Chas on 18.09.2002 on the instruction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro. He further stated that identifier name was Ram Awadh Singh i.e. the informant and the suspected miscreants was Rajiv Nandan @ Raju Patel and another miscreants was Lakhan Mahato. He has further stated that TIP was validly conducted during his presence and witnesses had identified suspect no. 1 as Rajiv Nandan @ Raju Patel and had stated that this suspect has pointed pistol at him and he was wearing yellow shirt. He further stated that at the time of identification ‘2’ was mentioned in the hand of suspect. However, the witness i.e. the informant has not identified suspect no. 2, Lakhan. The learned Magistrate has identified his TIP Chart prepared in his writing and signature which also contained the signature of Assistant Superintendent, Ashwini Kumar Tiwari. TIP of which was marked as Ext.-2. 22. During cross-examination, he stated that column 7 was filled up in TIP Chart. 23. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.-2, Tarun Kumar, it is evident that the informant has identified one of the co- convict Rajiv Nandan @ Raju Patel, who has pointed pistol at him, but he had not identified suspect no. 2, Lakhan Mahato. 24. At this stage, it is relevant to mention herein that the informant though had identified the accused- Rajiv Nandan @ Raju Patel and the petitioner- Chitranjan Sao in Court in para-8 of the examination, but he further stated that Lakhan Mahato was driving the Motorcycle, who is present in Court and the 4th person had arrived after 15-20 minutes earlier to Ratan Lal. From perusal of TIP Charge Marked as Ext.-2 and evidence of P.W.-2, it would -12- appear that for identifying the accused persons, although they were kept in group of 18 persons, but they put sign no. 1 and sign no. 2 in the hand of the suspect i.e. Rajiv Nandan @ Raju Patel and Lakhan Mahato and this shows that prosecution had got identified by marking sign on their respective hands as sign no. 1 and sign no. 2. 25. P. W. -3 is Syambhu, who was a Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro and he stated during his evidence that while he was posted as Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro on 05.10.2002 he had conducted TIP at Sub-Jail, Chas in Baladih P. S. Case No. 52 of 2002 under the instruction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro. He further stated that witness- Ram Awadh Singh i.e. the informant had identified the suspect Chitranjan Sao i.e. the petitioner and the witness has stated that suspect was gauging his neck and threatened him to kill. He has proved TIP Chart, which is Marked as Ext.-3. Although he stated that Mark-1 was given on the palm of witness, which was certified after verification, but it appears to be typographical error on the part of PO as TIP Chart at Column-7 reveals that Number-1 was mentioned at the hand of suspect which was certified after verification. 26. During cross-examination, he stated that he met witness for the first time inside the sub-jail Chas and prior to conducting TIP there was no prior meeting with the informant. However, he stated that he had not mentioned the case number and figure of suspect traced in the ratio of 1 : 9. He has also asked the witnesses as to whether police had got seen then the photographs of the suspect. 27. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P. W. -3, Syambhu, it would appear that the informant had identified the petitioner- Chitranjan Sao for gagging his neck, but TIP Chart Column-7 reveals that number 1 was mentioned in the hand of the -13- suspect i.e. the petitioner at the time of TIP. 28. P.W.-4 is Nand Kishore, who is Sub-Inspector and I. O. of this case and has stated that while he was posted as Sub-Inspector, and Officer In-charge of Balidih Police Station on 15.05.2002 and he had instituted the FIR. He has further proved the formal FIR marked as Ext.-4 and thereafter he had started investigation in this case. Then he recorded the subsequent statement of the informant. Thereafter he along with other associates and informant went to the place of occurrence and has mentioned that first place of occurrence is situated at a distance of 20 yards from Balidih More near R. K. Saloon, from which the informant was taken away by the miscreants and he has mentioned the boundaries and also stated that in the north, there is R. K. Saloon and there is tobacco stop of Narayan Sahani in south and eastern side goes to State Bank and western side, there is road connecting Bokaro-Ramgarh. Then he recorded the statement of witness-Anish Kumar Sao, Narayan Sahani and Ranjit Singh, who had described the occurrence. Then he inspected the second place of occurrence, which is situated near the Raj Samposit Vidhalaya from where the amount of the informant was looted and this is middle of Ramgarh-Bokaro Road and Raj Samposit Vidhalaya and has described the boundary and then, he recorded the statement of witnesses namely Manoj Kumar Tudu, Anand Soren, Sanjay Kumar Bharti, Deepak Manjhi, Vinod Kumar Singh, Surendra Manjhi, Riyaz Ahmed and Amul Trikey, who was also a hearsay witness and then he arranged spy and conducted the raid. Thereafter on 10.08.2002, he received information from Officer In-charge of Sector-IV P.S. that the one of the miscreant Rajiv Nandan @ Raju Patel had come in the police remand, who is stating about loot of Baladih Police and on this information, he interrogated Rajiv Nandan @ Raju Patel in Sector-IV Police -14- Station, who had admitted his guilt of this case and has disclosed the name of his associates namely Lakhan Mahato, Chitranjan Sao i.e. the petitioner and Ratan and he has recorded the confessional statement of Rajiv Nandan @ Raju Patel in Sector-IV P. S. and mentioned his statement in the case diary of this case and filed the application before the learned Court below for remanding Chitranjan Sao i.e. the petitioner and Lakhan. He had further filed application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for conducting TIP. On 18.09.2002, he obtained TIP Chart from the Court from which, he learnt that Rajiv Nandan @ Raju Patel was identified by the witness and witness had disclosed that this miscreant had pointed out pistol upon the informant and was wearing yellow shirt. Thereafter on 05.10.2002, he further conducted TIP from Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class and learnt that the informant had identified Chitranjan Sao, who had disclosed that this miscreants caught and gauged the neck of the informant and giving threatening. On completion of investigation, he had submitted charge sheet under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code against Rajiv Nandan @ Raju Patel, Lakhan Mahato and Chitranjan Sao i.e. the petitioner and kept the investigation pending against Ratan. He proved the first charge sheet Marked as Ext.-5. Thereafter on 29.10.2002, he had taken the remand of accused Ratan and after completing the investigation, he had submitted another 2nd charge sheet under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Coe on 20.11.2002, which has been marked as Ext.-6. 29. However, during cross-examination, he stated that during entire investigation, neither Chitranjan Sao i.e. the petitioner nor Lakhan admitted their complicity nor the informant had disclosed. He had not gone while TIP was being conducted. He further admitted and stated that during entire investigation nothing was recovered from the possession of both the accused -15- persons i.e. Chitranjan Sao i.e. the petitioner and Lakhan. He denied the suggestion for submitting defective charge sheet under the instruction of Senior Police Officer. He also admitted that he has not mentioned in the entire case diary that from which Account Number the informant has withdrawn money. He further admitted that he had not recorded the statement of any Bank Employee. He had also made investigation on the point of time of withdrawal of amount by the informant. 30. During further cross-examination, he further admitted that he was not aware that as to which Constable was on duty in the Bank on the date of occurrence because he had not made any investigation in the Bank. Written information of the informant was written in the police station and informant had submitted his written application i.e. Information at 1.15 P. M. He further stated that firstly he lodged the FIR and then, he started investigation, but he does not remember the time took place in making endorsement in the written application and for filling the formal FIR and time to start investigation. He also could not say the time taken by the informant in his subsequent statement, but he mentioned the time of recorded the statement at 13.15 hours in para-1 and para-3 of his case diary and closed the said work at 13.15 hours. He admitted that witness had not supported the occurrence at the first place of occurrence in their statement and occurrence was learnt on arrival of police. He further stated that even witness of 2nd place of occurrence had stated that neither any occurrence took place, although there were several labourers, who were engaged in under constructed house. He further admitted in para-21 that Anand Soren had not seen any person snatching the Motorcycle nor the amount even other witnesses present there had not supported the occurrence in their respective statements. I.O. confronted the statement on the point of occurrence at the first place of -16- occurrence. He further admitted in para-22 of his cross- examination that the owner of the Hotel near the 2nd place of occurrence had not seen anyone fleeing from Motorcycle i.e only way for going towards the Hotel. He further admitted that even Riyaz Mistri had not seen anyone moving coming and going and one Amul has not supported the occurrence. He also stated that from 06.07.2002 to 10.08.2002, he has not done any investigation. He had not conducted TIP of Rajiv Nandan @ Raju Patel before writing para-106 of the case diary and he had not got conducted this TIP before recording his confessional statement. He further admitted in para-25 that none of the witnesses have supported the occurrence of both the place of occurrence. However, he stated that Vinod Kumar at para-21 of the case diary had supported the occurrence and has stated that one vehicle and money was snatched at 1 to 1.30 P.M. and some has gone towards Baladih and except this he has got no other evidence. He had also complied with the direction of Dy.S.P., who had directed him to investigate about the criminal near the Bank, but he could not find any clue. He further admitted that he had not investigated on the point that the informant had given Rs. 5,000/- at his village in marriage in the month of April. He further admitted that he had neither filed any application for TIP of accused Ratan Sikdar nor he had issued any summon to the informant. He had not filed any application for recording the statement of those accused under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C., who had given their confessional statement. He has denied the suggestion that the informant has misappropriated the amount, but he had submitted that charge sheet by the table work without any evidence. 31. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of P.W.-4, Nand Kishore, it is evident that although he had found any clue after recording the statement of several witnesses namely Anish Kumar -17- Sao, Narayan Sahani and Ranjit Singh and they had not supported the occurrence, then at the second place of occurrence near the Raj Samposit Vidhalaya, he had recorded the statement of several witnesses namely Manoj Kumar Tudu, Anand Soren, Sanjay Kumar Bharti, Deepak Manjhi, Vinod Kumar Singh, Surendra Manjhi, Riyaz Ahmed and Amul Trikey, but they had not supported the prosecution case of robbery. He further admitted that he had recorded the confessional statement of firstly Rajiv Nandan @ Raju Patel in Sector-IV Police Station and on the basis of confessional statement of Rajiv Nandan @ Raju Patel he had remanded the petitioner, Chitranjan Sao i.e. the petitioner and one co-accused- Lakhan Mahato and thereafter he firstly got TIP conducted in respect of Rajiv Nandan @ Raju Patel and Lakhan Mahato, but witness had identified one miscreant Rajiv Nandan @ Raju Patel. Thereafter he got conducted TIP on 05.10.2002 and in which the petitioner was identified by the informant. However, he failed to state as to why, two TIP parade were conducted when all the four accused persons were present and available on 18.09.2002 itself and why he took seven days time to conduct TIP when he had already recorded the confessional statement of accused Rajiv Nandan @ Raju Patel on 10.08.2002 in Sector-IV Police Station. Therefore, there is grave laches on the part of the Investigating Officer by conducting TIP and which shows that I.O. has taken considerable time to get the accused persons identified at the hands of the informant. 32. It has been held in the case of Md. Sajjad @ Raju @ Salim Versus State of West Bengal reported in (2017) 11 SCC 150 at para -16 and 17 as follows:- “Para-16:- In the case in hand, apart from the fact that there was delay in holding the test identification parade, one striking feature is that none of the prosecution witnesses concerned had -18- given any identification marks or disclosed special features or attributes of any of those four persons in general and the accused in particular. Further, no incident or crime had actually taken place in the presence of those prosecution witnesses nor had any special circumstances occurred which would invite their attention so as to register the features or special attributes of the accused concerned. Their chance meeting, as alleged, was in the night and was only for some fleeting moments. Para-17:- In Subash v. State of U.P. [Subash v. State of U.P., (1987) 3 SCC 331 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 573] , the aspects of delay as well as absence of any special features for identification and the