Suraj Pal vs The State Of Haryana

The Supreme Court held that the conviction under Section 379-A IPC for mobile snatching was not sustainable due to insufficient evidence, particularly the lack of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) and the doubt surrounding the identification of the appellant by the witness, Vikas Sharma (PW-1). The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the conclusion that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. Consequently, the conviction was overturned, and the appeal was allowed.