Pranav B Prem

Emphasizing the necessity of a thorough examination of evidence in cases where the FIR is lodged against unknown persons and the accused are not previously known to the witnesses, the Supreme Court has acquitted two individuals convicted for robbery, citing major flaws in the police investigation and unreliable eyewitness identification.

The bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra, while allowing the appeals of the accused, observed: “In cases where the FIR is lodged against unknown persons, and the persons made accused are not known to the witnesses, material collected during investigation plays an important role to determine whether there is a credible case against the accused. In such type of cases, the courts have to meticulously examine the evidence regarding (a) how the investigating agency derived clue about the involvement of the accused in the crime; (b) the manner in which the accused was arrested; and (c) the manner in which the accused was identified.”

Background of the Case

The case pertained to a robbery on a Gramin Sewa mini-bus in Delhi on December 3, 2011, where four armed individuals allegedly looted passengers. The FIR was lodged against unknown persons. Two days later, on December 5, 2011, the complainant allegedly spotted four individuals near the Nand Nagri bus depot and informed the police, leading to their arrest. While the trial court acquitted them, the Delhi High Court reversed the decision, convicting them under Sections 392/397 of the IPC and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment. The accused then approached the Supreme Court.

Doubts Over the Arrest and Identification

The Supreme Court scrutinized the manner of arrest and identification, expressing serious concerns over the prosecution’s version of events. The Court questioned how the accused, who were not related to each other, happened to be together at a public place near a police station just two days after the incident, carrying weapons similar to those described in the FIR. It noted that the complainant, PW-1, claimed he was heading to the police station at 10 PM in winter to submit a mobile purchase receipt when he coincidentally saw the accused. The Court found this scenario improbable, stating that PW-1, not being a resident of Nand Nagri and having been a robbery victim, was unlikely to venture out so late for such a minor reason.

The Court observed discrepancies in the police witnesses' testimonies regarding where they first received the information about the accused’s presence. It also pointed out that there was no official police record of PW-1 providing this information before they left for the bus depot, raising further doubts about the authenticity of the arrest. The Supreme Court further noted: “Once we doubt the manner in which the accused were stated to have been arrested, the alleged recovery of screw driver, knives and country-made pistol made at the time of arrest is rendered unacceptable.”

Reliability of Eyewitness Testimonies

The Court found that while seven eyewitnesses were examined, only three (PW-1, PW-5, and PW-6) identified the accused in court. Among the remaining four, three explicitly stated that the accused were not the robbers, and the fourth said he could not recognize them due to darkness. The Court also highlighted the significant delay in dock identification, stating: “As far as dock identification by the remaining two eye witnesses is concerned, they identified the accused persons during their deposition in court in the year 2015, that is, after nearly 4 years of the incident. PW-6, though stated that he identified the accused persons on 06.12.2011 while they were in the police lock-up, admitted that he went to the police station without being summoned. Interestingly, as per his description in the record, he is a resident of Aligarh. During cross-examination, he stated that he visited the police station on 06.12.2011 at 07:30 a.m. Considering that he is a resident of Aligarh, his statement that he visited the police station without summons on 06.12.2011 at 07:30 a.m. does not inspire our confidence.”

The Court held that dock identification alone, conducted several years after the incident, without a prior Test Identification Parade (TIP), was insufficient to establish guilt.

Absence of Corroborative Evidence

The Court noted that no looted articles were recovered from the accused, and the trial court had already acquitted them of charges under Section 411 IPC. It also found inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements, further weakening the prosecution’s case. Citing its previous ruling in Manoj and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) 2 SCC 353, the Court reiterated: “Normally where accused persons are unknown and are not named in the FIR, if the prosecution case as regards the manner in which they were arrested is disbelieved, the Court should proceed cautiously with other evidence and objectively determine whether all other circumstances were proved beyond reasonable doubt.”

Verdict

Finding the prosecution’s case unconvincing and full of inconsistencies, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the accused, stating that they should have been given the benefit of the doubt. The Court concluded: “In such circumstances, and in absence of corroborative evidence of recovery of looted articles at the instance of or from the accused persons, in our view, this was a fit case where the appellants should have been given the benefit of doubt.” Accordingly, the appeals were allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges. 

Cause Title: Wahid Vs State Govt.of NCT of Delhi

                    with Anshu Vs State Govt.of NCT of Delhi

Case No: Criminal Appeal Nos .201 and 202 of 2020

Date: February-04-2025

Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Manoj Misra

[Read/Download order]