In Brief
The appellant was convicted of robbery (Sections 397 and 392 IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. His conviction was based primarily on recovery of money from his house following a Section 27 statement and identification by the informant. However, no test identification parade was conducted for the appellant (unlike co-accused), and the informant admitted in cross-examination that the accused had covered his face and could not be recognized. The Supreme Court held that mere recovery of money was insufficient to sustain conviction without reliable identification evidence. The Court acquitted the appellant, granting him the benefit of doubt.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.