The Supreme Court of India recently acquitted two individuals, Wahid and Anshu, who had been convicted in a robbery case based on questionable identification and circumstantial evidence. The Court emphasized the need for meticulous scrutiny in cases where the First Information Report (FIR) does not name the accused, and eyewitnesses do not have prior familiarity with them.

Background

The case revolved around a robbery that took place on December 3, 2011, in Nand Nagri, Delhi. The prosecution alleged that the complainant and other passengers traveling in a Gramin Sewa (mini-bus) were robbed by four individuals armed with knives, a screwdriver, and a country-made pistol. The accused allegedly looted mobile phones and cash before fleeing the scene.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused Extrajudicial Confession Lacked Credibility

The police registered FIR No. 512/2011 at PS Nand Nagri, Delhi, but none of the accused were named. Two days later, on December 5, 2011, the complainant allegedly spotted the accused near a bus depot and informed the police. Subsequently, all four individuals were arrested, and some weapons were recovered from them.

The Trial Court convicted Wahid and Anshu under Sections 392 and 397 of the IPC, sentencing them to seven years of rigorous imprisonment along with fines. Anshu was additionally convicted under Section 25(1) of the Arms Act and sentenced to three years of imprisonment. Their conviction was later upheld by the Delhi High Court.

Supreme Court's Observations and Ruling

The Court found the manner of arrest suspicious. The police claimed that the complainant, while on his way to the police station to submit a mobile purchase receipt, identified the accused standing near the DTC Bus Depot. However, the Court noted that:

Read Also:- SCAORA Submits Recommendations to SC on Guidelines for Advocates-on-Record and Senior Designation Process

The accused were not named in the FIR and were not known to any of the witnesses before the incident.

The police claimed to have recovered a knife, pistol, and screwdriver from the accused at the time of arrest. The Court found this too convenient to be credible.

The complainant’s presence at 10 PM on a winter night near the bus depot was improbable.

The Court criticized the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP), which is crucial when accused persons are not known to the eyewitnesses prior to the incident. The delay in identification raised serious doubts:

Read Also:- Supreme Court Relieves Datla Sreenivasa Varma from SIT In-charge Role in Manipur Extra-Judicial Killings Probe

“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.”

Out of seven eyewitnesses, only three identified the accused in court. Three witnesses explicitly stated that the accused were not the robbers. One witness admitted that it was too dark to identify anyone. Two witnesses identified the accused in court nearly four years later, making dock identification unreliable.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Woman Entitled to Maintenance from Second Husband Despite Legally Undissolved First Marriage

The prosecution’s case suffered from severe contradictions in witness statements:

Police officers gave conflicting statements about how they received information about the accused’s presence.

The complainant himself contradicted his earlier statements regarding how and when he saw the accused after the incident.

There was no recovery of stolen mobile phones or cash from the accused.

“In absence of corroborative evidence of recovery of looted articles at the instance of or from the accused persons, this was a fit case where the appellants should have been given the benefit of doubt.”

The Supreme Court found that dock identification alone, without a prior TIP, was insufficient to convict the accused. The memory of the witnesses was never tested through proper legal procedures.

Read Also:- Registry Cannot Delete a Case from Cause List Without Court's Order Supreme Court

“Admittedly, memory of those witnesses was not tested through a test identification parade. In such circumstances, when three eyewitnesses stated that accused persons were not the ones who committed the crime and another one stated that it was too dark to recognize, not much reliance can be placed on dock identification.”

Supreme Court’s Verdict

Considering the doubts regarding the manner of arrest, contradictions in witness testimonies, and absence of reliable identification, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction. The appeals were allowed, and the accused were acquitted of all charges.

“The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge(s) for which they were tried and convicted.”

Case Title: WAHID VERSUS STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI and ANSHU VERSUS STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI