JUDGEMENT REVIEW: LACK OF EVIDENCE AND DELAY IN PROCEDURE LEAD TO ACQUITTAL IN DACOITY CASE

Case Title: Vinod Nasmulla vs. The State of Chhattisgarh
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2025 INSC 220
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
Date of Judgment: February 14, 2025

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case is about Vinod Nasmulla, who was convicted under Section 395 and Section 397 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Vinod and others were accused of looting passengers from a moving bus on September 28, 1993 at 11:30 PM in Surguja, Chhattisgarh. The appellant held a country-made pistol to the driver’s head, forcing the vehicle to stop, after which he and his team robbed passengers, physically assaulted them, and fired shots. The appellant was  arrested a few hours later at 3:00 AM on September 29, 1993 and was found carrying a country-made pistol with five cartridges. During the trial the Sessions Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to seven years of jail time with a fine of ₹2,000 and the Allahabad High Court made sure to confirm the decision. The appellant challenged his conviction before the Supreme Court of India on the grounds of unreliable witness testimony, lack of forensic evidence, and failure in proper procedure.

 

KEY ISSUES

1. Was the identification of the appellant in court and during the identification reliable?
2. Was there sufficient evidence to link the recovered firearm to the crime?
3. Did the trial court and the High Court err in convicting the appellant despite procedural lapses and lack of corroborating evidence?

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

1. Section 395 IPC – Punishment for Dacoity.
2. Section 397 IPC – Dacoity with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.
3. Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 – Possession of illegal arms.
4. Article 136 of the Constitution of India – Special leave to appeal in Supreme Court.
5. Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Relevance of facts showing identity of a person or thing.

ARGUMENTS 

Petitioner’s Arguments:

 

1. Unreliable Identification: The prosecution failed to examine key witnesses, the bus driver, conductor, and cleaner who allegedly identified the appellant in the 
2. No Recovery of Looted Articles: None of the stolen items were recovered from the appellant, raising doubts about his involvement.
3. Flawed Firearm Evidence: The seized country-made pistol was not linked to the fired bullets at the crime scene. No forensic examination connected the gun to the crime and the memo was not filed for nearly 9 hours after the arrest.

 

Respondent’s Arguments:

 

1. Strong Eyewitness Testimony: A police personnel, identified the petitioner in court as one of the dacoits who held the pistol to the driver’s head.
2. Possession of Firearm: The appellant was found with a country-made pistol and live cartridges, which indicated criminal intent.
3. Corroborative Evidence: The fact that the arresting officers both confirmed the appellant’s identity supported the prosecution’s case.

 

ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court observed major discrepancies in the case of the prosecution and questioned the credibility of evidence employed to convict the appellant. The driver, conductor, and cleaner who were involved in the testimony were not cross-examined in court, and hence the process of identification became unreliable. Also, the pistol said to have been  recovered from the appellant was never compared with the bullets that were fired during the dacoity, which was a serious lacuna in the case of the prosecution. The undue delay in getting the seizure memo of the firearm undermined Vinod’s case, particularly as he did not put up any resistance to arrest, even though he was allegedly found with a loaded weapon. No recovered stolen property was found on Vinod during the police search and key witnesses such as the driver, conductor, and cleaner were not effectively questioned. Due to these material omissions, the Supreme Court held that guilt beyond reasonable doubt was not established by the prosecution.

 

JUDGMENT

1. Conviction was not agreed with due to lack of any evidence that put Vinod on the scene of the crime.
2. Vinod cannot be identified as the dacoit as key witnesses were not examined.
3. There is no forensic evidence linking firearms to crime.
4. No stolen property recovered from the appellant.
5. Appellant acquitted; bail bond discharged.

 

CONCLUSION

The ruling of the Supreme Court emphasizes the need to maintain procedural fairness and credible evidence during criminal trials. There was a reasonable doubt in this case as important witnesses were not questioned and there was no forensic evidence linking the weapon to the crime. The case is a landmark decision that upholds the fundamental rule that regardless how strong your suspicion is you cannot use it beyond proof. The decision made sure that Indian individuals are protected against any kind of wrongful conviction. The ruling is a critical turning point in investigation procedures where a firearm is involved and role of witnesses in a robbery.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more

than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls

into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer,

best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer

lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

WRITTEN BY TANMAYEE VELLORE RAGHUNANDAN