Introduction:

In a significant ruling by the Orissa High Court in the case of Baikuntha Bhoi & Anr. v. State of Odisha & connected matters, the court emphasized the crucial role of the Magistrate who conducts Test Identification Parades (TIP) as a prosecution witness. The case revolved around the prosecution of four individuals under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for alleged involvement in a robbery. Central to the appeal was the omission to examine the TIP Magistrate and the validity of the TIP process.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The appellants contested their conviction on the grounds that the charge under Section 395 of the IPC was unsustainable as it required the involvement of at least five persons, whereas only four were implicated. Additionally, they raised concerns about the identification process during the TIP, highlighting the failure to present recovered articles to the informant for identification. The prosecution countered these arguments, defending the conviction and the TIP procedure.

Court’s Judgement:

Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo, presiding over the single-judge bench, ruled in favor of the appellants, overturning their conviction. The court held that the charge under Section 395 was untenable without evidence of involvement by five or more persons. Furthermore, it stressed the necessity of examining the TIP Magistrate as a prosecution witness to ensure the integrity of the identification process. The failure to do so, the court emphasized, undermines the prosecution’s case and the cause of justice.