WAHID  [APPELLANT]   Vs.  STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI   [RESPONDENT]

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.201 OF 2020

(2JB, PS NARASIMHA and MANOJ MISRA JJ., delivered by MANOJ MISRA, J.)

The Supreme Court, in a recent ruling, emphasized that when accused individuals are not named in the First Information Report (FIR), courts must proceed cautiously while evaluating other evidence. This observation came while allowing two criminal appeals challenging a Delhi High Court judgment that had upheld the Trial Court’s conviction of the appellants.

A two-judge bench, comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra, noted that when the prosecution’s account of how the accused were arrested is questionable, courts should carefully examine the remaining evidence. The Bench stressed that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that merely recovering weapons or articles—especially when such items are not uniquely identifiable—does not conclusively prove guilt.

The appellants were charged under Sections 392, 397, and 411 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. According to the prosecution, the complainant was traveling in a mini-bus at night with four other passengers, along with the driver and conductor. During the journey, four individuals, including the appellants, allegedly boarded the vehicle, threatened passengers with knives, a screwdriver, and a country-made pistol, and robbed them of cash and mobile phones before fleeing. The driver later reported the incident to the police, leading to an FIR being filed.

The Trial Court convicted appellant Wahid under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC but acquitted him under Section 411 IPC. He was sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹5,000. Appellant Anshu received the same sentence for robbery and an additional three years under the Arms Act. Both convicts appealed their sentences to the Delhi High Court, which upheld the Trial Court’s decision, prompting them to approach the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court found significant flaws in the lower courts’ handling of the case. It observed that both the High Court and the Trial Court failed to rigorously assess the prosecution’s evidence. The Court particularly questioned the manner of the accused’s arrest, calling it “highly doubtful” and unconvincing. Since the reliability of the arrest process was in doubt, any alleged recovery of weapons at the time of arrest was also deemed unreliable.

Another critical issue was the testimony of the eyewitnesses. Three witnesses explicitly stated that the accused were not the ones who committed the robbery, while another stated that due to poor visibility, he could not recognize the culprits. The Court noted that since the accused were not previously known to the witnesses, the dock identification (identification in court) could not be given significant weight without corroborating evidence. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the absence of any recovery of stolen items from the accused, which weakened the prosecution’s case. Given these inconsistencies, the Supreme Court ruled that the appellants should have been granted the benefit of the doubt.

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court’s judgment, allowed the appeals, and acquitted the accused. The ruling underscores the importance of caution when handling cases where accused individuals are unknown at the time of the FIR and stresses the need for solid and corroborative evidence to support a conviction