Judgment : (Rajani Dubey, J.) The appellant in this appeal is challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.5.2022 passed by Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in ST No.H-02/2021 whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 450 of Indian Penal Code. RI for 07 years, fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for 01 month. Under Section 394 of Indian Penal Code. RI for 10 years, fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for 01 month. Under Section 397 of Indian Penal Code. RI for 07 years, fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for 01 month. Under Section 506-II of Indian Penal Code. RI for 07 years, fine of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for 01 month. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 18.10.2020 at around 13:30 hours some unknown person illegally entered the house of complainant Nirmala with intention to commit loot on the threat of life. Seeing him, the complainant got afraid and when she asked about his identity, he demanded money on the point of knife. He snatched Rs.2000/- from her purse and demanded more money. During this process, he assaulted on her with knife as a result of which fingers of both her hands got cut. The assailant also suffered cut injury in his hand. However, on her raising alarm, he fled from there. Based on this report, offence under Sections 394, 450 and 506 of IPC was registered against unknown person. The complainant was got medically examined, bloodstains from the place of occurrence were seized and spot map was prepared. During investigation, the accused/appellant was arrested and on his memorandum, the clothes worn by him at the time of incident, cash of Rs.2000/-, knife and motorcycle used in commission of crime were seized and he too was subjected to medical examination. The seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination. After completion of necessary investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 394, 450, 506, 397 and 398 of IPC. 03. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 450, 397, 394 and 506 Part-II of IPC against the accused which were abjured by him and he prayed for trial. The seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination. After completion of necessary investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 394, 450, 506, 397 and 398 of IPC. 03. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 450, 397, 394 and 506 Part-II of IPC against the accused which were abjured by him and he prayed for trial. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no witness was examined by him in defence. 04. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 05. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to law and material available on record. Learned trial court ought to have appreciated the fact that the complainant in her cross-examination admitted that the person who entered her house had covered his face with scarf and his face was not identifiable. She also admitted that she could identify the accused/appellant as the police had showed her photographs of the accused. Thus, identification of the accused is very much doubtful in this case. Further, seizure of knife and cash of Rs.2000/- is also not significant because knife is a common article found in every household and the amount recovered is also not so much as to connect the accused with the crime in question. The statements of the prosecution witnesses also suffer from the vice of contradiction and omission. The prosecution has failed to prove its case based on the evidence adduced by it and therefore, the findings of guilt recorded by the trial Court are liable to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of all the charges. 06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the contention of the appellant submits that the learned trial Court upon minute appreciation of oral and documentary evidence has rightly convicted and sentenced by the appellant by the impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 07. Therefore, the present appeal being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 08. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the appellant was charged under Sections 450, 397, 394 and 506 Part-II of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, he was convicted and sentenced by the impugned judgment as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 09. PW-2 Smt. Nirmala Pimpalkar, complainant, states in her examination- in-chief that on the date of incident the accused entered her house with a knife and demanded money on the point of knife. He took out Rs.2000/- from her purse. During the scuffle when she raised her hand, three fingers of each of her hands got cut. However, on her raising hue and cry, the accused fled from there. She states that report of Ex.P/5 was lodged by her which bears her signature from A to A part and the spot map Ex.P/6 bears her signature from A to A part. She states that she identified the accused before the Executive Magistrate vide Ex.P/7. In her cross-examination she admits that the accused had covered his face with a scarf and therefore, he was not identifiable. She further volunteers that she had pulled the scarf and saw his face. However, in para 11 she states that the police had shown her the photograph of the accused in the hospital. She admits that only on the basis of photograph shown to her by the police, she identified the accused in the test identification parade. She further volunteers that on account of pulling the scarf, she identified him. On being asked as to why she did not mention the fact of pulling the scarf in FIR (Ex.P5) and her case diary statement (Ex.P/1), she states that at that time she was in hospital, all this was written by the police, the contents were not read over to her whereas she had disclosed this fact to the police. 10. The other witnesses namely PW-3 Smt. Aarti Dani and PW-4 Hemant Pimpalkar (son of the complainant) are not eyewitness to the incident. Even PW-3 has stated that the complainant told her that an unknown thief entered her house with his face covered. 11. 10. The other witnesses namely PW-3 Smt. Aarti Dani and PW-4 Hemant Pimpalkar (son of the complainant) are not eyewitness to the incident. Even PW-3 has stated that the complainant told her that an unknown thief entered her house with his face covered. 11. PW-6 TR Dewangan, Sub Divisional Officer, states that he conducted test identification parade in Tahsil Office, Pithoura where the complainant duly identified the accused and accordingly he prepared the identification memo Ex.P/7 which bears his signature from B to B and C to C part. He denied the suggestion that before TIP the complainant was already shown the photograph of the accused on mobile. 12. PW-11 Naveen Sahu and PW-12 Arun Sahu are witnesses to the memorandum Ex.P/21 and seizure Ex.P/22. They only admit their signature on these documents and state that they signed these documents at the behest of police. The prosecution declared them hostile and cross-examined but they denied all the suggestions of the prosecution. 13. Learned trial Court has convicted the appellant under Sections 394 and 397 of IPC whereas Section 397 of IPC deals with enhanced punishment only and it’s not a substantive offence. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Kallu @ Ramkumar Vs. State of Madhay Pradesh, 1992 MPLJ 558 observed in para 11 of its judgment as under: "11. Learned trial Judge has sentenced the accused persons under sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code separately. Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the enhanced punishment only. It is not a substantive offence. The substantive offence may be robbery or dacoity. In this case, the substantive offence as proved, is dacoity and, therefore, there ought to have been only one sentence. It is a different matter that the enhanced punishment could be inflicted with the aid of section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, the appeal filed by accused Kallu alias Ramkumar, Barelal and Sukhram is accepted. They are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are on ball. Their ball-bonds are discharged. The appeal of accused-appellants Gabbar allas Goverdhan and Chhotu alias Dayaram is dismissed and sentence passed against them under section 395 read with section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, i.e., rigorous imprisonment for seven years, is maintained. Appellant No. 1 Gabbar alias Goverdhan is in jail. He be informed with the result of this appeal accordingly. The appeal of accused-appellants Gabbar allas Goverdhan and Chhotu alias Dayaram is dismissed and sentence passed against them under section 395 read with section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, i.e., rigorous imprisonment for seven years, is maintained. Appellant No. 1 Gabbar alias Goverdhan is in jail. He be informed with the result of this appeal accordingly. Appellant Chhotu alias Dayaram is on bail. He is directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seoni, on 11-12-1991 for serving out the remaining period of sentence." 14. So far as identification of the accused is concerned, looking to the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses, the TIP appears to be doubtful. She admits that prior to TIP, the police had shown her photograph of the accused on mobile while she was in hospital. It is well settled that if the evidence on record reveals that the accused was shown to the witness prior to TIP, such identification loses its significance and sanctity of TIP before the Court is doubtful. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Gireesan Nair and others Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2023) 1 SCC 180 held in para … of its judgment as under: "28. In cases where the witnesses have had ample opportunity to see the accused before the identification parade is held, it may adversely affect the trial. It is the duty of the prosecution to establish before the court that right from the day of arrest, the accused was kept “baparda” to rule out the possibility of their face being seen while in police custody. If the witnesses had the opportunity to see the accused before the TIP, be it in any form, i.e., physically, through photographs or via media (newspapers, television etc.), the evidence of the TIP is not admissible as a valid piece of evidence (Lal Singh and Ors v. State of U.P., (2003) 12 SCC 554 and Suryamoorthi and Anr. v. Govindaswamy and Ors., (1989) 3 SCC 24 ). 29. If identification in the TIP has taken place after the accused is shown to the witnesses, then not only is the evidence of TIP inadmissible, even an identification in a court during trial is meaningless (Sk. Umar Ahmed Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (1998) 5 SCC 103 ). v. Govindaswamy and Ors., (1989) 3 SCC 24 ). 29. If identification in the TIP has taken place after the accused is shown to the witnesses, then not only is the evidence of TIP inadmissible, even an identification in a court during trial is meaningless (Sk. Umar Ahmed Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (1998) 5 SCC 103 ). Even a TIP conducted in the presence of a police officer is inadmissible in light of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Chunthuram v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2020) 10 SCC 733 and Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay, (1955) 1 SCR 903 )." 16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and quality of evidence adduced, in particular of the complainant; the manner in which identification of the accused is made; keeping in view the aforesaid decisions this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. Neither identification of the accused is proved in accordance with law nor memorandum or seizure is proved against him. Learned trial Court without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record has recorded finding of guilt which cannot be sustained and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of all the charges by extending him benefit of doubt. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the trial Court is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges under Sections 450, 394, 397 and 506 Part-II of IPC. He is reported to be in jail, therefore, he be set free forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other offence. 18. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of CrPC, appellant is also directed to furnish a personal bond in terms of form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months alongwith an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The record of the trial Court along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.