Read Time: 14 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on February 4, 2025, acquitted two men accused of committing robbery on a moving bus in Delhi in 2011, finding the manner of their arrest and recovery of weapons allegedly used in the offence as highly doubtful.

A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Manoj Misra said mere proof of robbery is not sufficient to hold that the accused persons who were put to trial were the ones who committed the offence.

"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," the bench said.

Besides, the court said the discovery or recovery of any looted article on the disclosure made by, or at the instance of, the accused, or from his possession, assumes importance to lend credence to the prosecution case.

It was the case of the prosecution that the complainant along with others including the driver and conductor was travelling in Gramin Seva (minibus) at about 11.25 pm on December 3, 2011, at Nand Nagri when four men boarded it and threatened the passengers with knives, screwdriver, and country-made pistol, robbed them of their mobiles and cash and deboarded the vehicle.

The accused were arrested two days after December 5, 2011 near DTC Bus Depot at Nand Nagri. According to the prosecution, at the time of arrest, Narender alias Bhola (non-appellant) had a knife, Anshu had a countrymade pistol, Arif (non-appellant) had a button operated knife and Wahid had a screwdriver. Besides that, they had some cash. Next date, looted mobiles were recovered at the instance of Narender and Arif.

Appellants Wahid and Anshu were convicted and sentenced to seven years imprisonment by the trial court and their appeals were dismissed by the high court.

Examining their appeal, the bench noted, neither the accused persons were named nor they were known either to the complainant or the witnesses from before.

The bench said the prosecution case was rather too simple, that was, two days later, on December 5, 2011, the complainant himself noticed the accused persons standing near DTC Bus Depot at Nand Nagri; immediately thereafter he informed the police about their presence; the police went to the spot, arrested them, and, upon search of those persons, recovered from them weapons including screwdriver, as described in the FIR, used by the robbers to threaten the passengers.

"The prosecution story of four accused persons, not belonging to one family, being spotted together at a public place (i.e., bus depot), that too near a police station, just two days after the incident, that too with weapons corresponding to the weapons held by the robbers mentioned in the FIR, appears too well-crafted to be real. More so, when we consider it in conjunction with the arrest memorandums of the four accused which indicate that they were arrested post 10 pm on December 5, 2011. This is quite an odd hour for any person to venture out on a winter night," the bench said.

The court also pointed out the complainant, who was a witness to the arrest memorandums, in his statement- in- chief said that while he was going to the police station to hand over the mobile purchase receipt, he spotted the accused persons.

"Such a story appears improbable because the complainant, who is not a resident of Nand Nagri, and had suffered an act of robbery just two days before, in ordinary circumstances would not venture out so late in the night, just to hand over receipt regarding purchase of his robbed mobile. These circumstances make the prosecution story relating to the manner of arrest highly improbable. Therefore, it should have put the court on guard as to look for corroborative pieces of evidence before accepting the prosecution story as credible," the bench said.

One such corroborative piece of evidence could be the recovery of looted articles from the accused which, in the present case, was absent inasmuch as the trial court had already acquitted the appellants of the charge of offence punishable under Section 411 IPC, the bench said.

The court also noted the discrepancy in the receipt of information about the presence of the accused at a bus depot.

It said, if the version of the complainant was correct, there ought to have been a record of receipt of such information at the police station.

"Because, in ordinary course, before leaving the police station, based on any information, the police officer enters the information in the relevant diary and then proceeds. Here there is no disclosure in the testimony of any of the police witnesses that before leaving the police station, the information provided by the complainant regarding spotting the accused was entered in any of the diaries maintained at the police station," the bench said.

The court noted there was no disclosure in the testimony of any of the police witnesses that before leaving the police station, the information provided by the complainant regarding spotting the accused was entered in any of the diaries maintained at the police station.

Besides that, the court said, the complainant during cross-examination, made a self-contradictory statement which rendered the prosecution case regarding arrest and recovery from the accused persons doubtful.

Having referred to Section 313 CrPC statement by the accused that they were picked up from home and falsely implicated by the police, the bench said, a serious doubt was cast on how the prosecution claimed to have arrested the accused.

"Unfortunately, the High Court and the trial court were not circumspect while evaluating the prosecution evidence and thereby failed to test the prosecution evidence on the anvil of probability as was required in the facts of the case," the bench said.

The court held that the arrest of the accused persons in the manner alleged by the prosecution was "highly doubtful and unworthy of acceptance".

"Once we doubt the manner in which the accused were stated to have been arrested, the alleged recovery of screw driver, knives and countrymade pistol made at the time of arrest is rendered unacceptable. Moreover, weapons /articles allegedly recovered are not so unique that they cannot be arranged," the bench said.

The court also rejected the dock identification of the appellants by the eyewitnesses.

"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," the bench said.

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the high court's judgment and acquitted the appellants Wahid and Anshu of the charges for which they were tried and convicted.

Case Title: Wahid Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi