Citing Doubtful Arrest and Identification, Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Robbery Case.

The Supreme Court in the roberry case allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgment of the High Court and acquitted the appellants. These appeals filed by Wahid and Anshu, appellants, are against their conviction under Sections 392, 397 and 411 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The appellants were accused of robbing the passengers on a Gramin Sewa (mini bus) along with two others, Narender and Arif - both of whom were also convicted but do not implicate themselves in the appeal.

Background: The prosecution case was that on the night of December 3, 2011, the four accused boarded the said bus, threatened the passengers with weapons like knives, a screwdriver, and a country-made pistol and robbed cash and mobile phones from them. The complainant (PW-1) reported the incident, and the police arrested the four accused on December 5, 2011, allegedly based on information provided by PW-1.

The Trial Court convicted Wahid and Anshu, and the High Court dismissed their appeals, whereas Wahid was convicted under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, and Anshu was convicted under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC and Section 25(1) of the Arms Act and sentenced to seven years and three years of rigorous imprisonment respectively.

Doubtful arrest: The SC said the prosecution story as regards to arrest was highly improbable. For one thing, four accused, unrelated to each other, had been traced to a bus depot near the police station exactly two days after robbery with weapons of the description approximating those described in FIR.

Inconsistency in the Testimony of Witnesses: There was inconsistency in the testimony of police witnesses, PW-10 and PW-13, as to where they received information about the location of the appellants.

Unreliable Identification: The court noted that PW-1, the complainant, during cross-examination had contradicted himself as to whether he had seen the accused on the date of their arrest.

Blank Signatures: PW-1, a signatory to seizure memorandums, has stated that he signed blank papers, which again creates doubt in the recovery of weapons.

No Test Identification Parade: No test identification parade was conducted to ascertain if other passengers could identify the accused, which was crucial since the accused were not known to the witnesses.

Conflicting Eye Witness Testimony: The court further noted that though three eye witnesses identified the accused in court, three other eye witnesses stated in clear terms that the accused persons were not the robbers. One witness testified that it was too dark and, therefore could not identify anyone.

Unreliable Dock Identification: The court held that the identification of the appellant by the witnesses in the dock was unreliable given that it was done several years after the incident and without a test identification parade.

Lack of Corroborative Evidence: The court also noted that no looted articles were recovered from the accused, and the accused had already been acquitted of the charge under Section 411 of the IPC. The non-recovery further weakened the prosecution case.

The Apex Court held that the prosecution case with regard to the arrest and identification of the accused was doubtful, and observing the serious doubts on the method and mode of arrest, recovery of weapons, and identification and not being supported by any other corroboration, the Supreme Court extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants.

Thus, The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and acquitting the appellants, Wahid and Anshu, and the Apex Court held that when the accused are unknown and not named in the FIR, the courts must exercise a more cautious approach.

Coram: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha And Justice Manoj Misra
Between: Wahid Vs State Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Date of Judgment: 04-02-2025