Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, held that a conviction could be based solely on the testimony of police officials without corroboration from a public witness, provided that it instilled confidence. The court made such an observation in an appeal challenging the conviction passed by the Trial Court for theft. The trial court had found the accused guilty of theft. 

The bench of Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar held, “Conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of police officials without corroboration from a public witness, if it inspires confidence”. 

According to the prosecution, the victim was at the Birla Mandir bus stand preparing to go to her office when two boys on a motorcycle approached her. They blocked her path, showed a pistol, and forcefully took her gold chain while threatening her. Later, the victim contacted her brother Shakti Singh, who arrived at the scene and called the police. Subsequently, the police were informed via telephone that two suspects had been arrested in another case and confessed to their involvement in the chain-snatching incident.

Advocate Sachin Aggrwal representing the accused argued that no incriminating evidence was found in their possession and that the alleged recovery of the chain was fabricated. They also questioned the reliability of witness testimonies. The prosecution, represented by the State's counsel, defended the judgment, acknowledging minor contradictions in witness testimonies but asserting that they did not undermine the case.

The court noted that Sections 378 and 379 of the IPC required four conditions: “(a) that the accused had taken the movable property dishonestly, (b) property was taken out of possession of the complainant, (c) property was taken out without consent of the complainant and (d) the property was moved to such taking”. 

Additionally, the court acknowledged that the primary argument presented by the appellants' counsel was that the recoveries attributed to them were false, and they contended that the Trial Court erred by exclusively relying on witness statements. Moreover, they asserted that the police falsely accused the appellants due to a lack of evidence, and the investigating officer neglected to elucidate how the appellants were identified as the perpetrators. Nonetheless, the Trial Court rendered a conviction against the appellants based on witness testimonies and recoveries.

Advocate Aggrwal contended that the investigating officer did not engage public witnesses during the investigation or when the appellants indicated the crime scene. The court recognized that while the investigating officer indeed omitted public witnesses, this omission does not invalidate the prosecution's case. It is commonplace for the public to be hesitant to participate in investigations. Furthermore, the failure of the investigating officer may be viewed as a procedural oversight, yet it alone cannot undermine the prosecution's case and the credibility of official witnesses.

The court while referring to the case of State of U.P. v. Bhagwan (AIR 1997 SC 3292), reiterated “minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses are deemed inconsequential unless they substantially undermine the fundamental assertions of the prosecution's case”. 

In this instance, the bench noted that the victim consistently recounted her experience to both the police and the court. Despite rigorous questioning during cross-examination, her account remained steadfast, with no evidence emerging to undermine its credibility. Advocate Aggrwal argued that their clients were wrongly accused and that the prosecution failed to definitively establish their involvement. However, this argument lacked merit.

After carefully reviewing the case documents, the bench concluded that based on the identification of the accused, the recovery of the stolen chain, and the conduct of the accused, it was conclusively proven that they were responsible for the chain-snatching incident.

Therefore, the court held that further identification procedures by the police were unnecessary. Challenging their identification based on presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act is unjustifiable, especially considering their possession of the stolen items.

Finally, the bench reaffirmed that conviction based solely on police testimony without corroboration from a public witness is permissible if it inspires confidence. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal.
 
Advocates for Petitioner: Advocates Sachin Aggrwal and Aditya Chaudhary
Advocates for State: Additional Public Prosecutor Amit Ahlawat

Case Title: Naresh @ Satya v State (2024:DHC:3202)