CASE DETAILS
Case Name: Wahid vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2020 (With Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 2020)
Date: February 4, 2025
Quorum: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha & Justice Manoj Misra
FACTS OF THE CASE
Wahid and Anshu, along with two others, were accused of robbing a Gramin Sewa minibus near Delhi’s Gagan Cinema on December 3, 2011. The victims were allegedly threatened with several knives, a screwdriver and a homemade pistol, then robbed of their mobile phones and cash. A registered First Information Report (FIR) named several unidentified people.
Police arrested the accused at the busy Nand Nagri bus depot on December 5, 2011, following a strong eyewitness identification. Officers recovered several weapons as well. Investigators conducted a thorough search. They found zero stolen items. The trial court definitively found the appellants guilty under Sections 392/397 IPC, resulting in their subsequent receipt of considerably harsh seven-year sentences of strict imprisonment. The High Court thoroughly reviewed the conviction, subsequently affirming it. Because of unreliable prosecution evidence and a fabricated arrest, the appellants appealed their conviction to the Supreme Court.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
- Whether the identification of the accused by the eyewitness (PW-1) without a Test Identification Parade (TIP) was reliable and sufficient for conviction?
- Whether the prosecution established the manner of arrest and recovery of weapons beyond a reasonable doubt?
- Whether the absence of looted articles from the accused undermined the prosecution’s case?
LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED
- Section 392 IPC (Punishment for Robbery) – Provides punishment of up to ten years for robbery.
- Section 397 IPC (Use of a Deadly Weapon During Robbery) – Mandates a minimum sentence of seven years if a deadly weapon is used during a robbery.
- Section 25(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 – Punishes the possession of illegal arms.
ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT (WAHID & ANSHU)
The appellants contended that their conviction was based on unreliable evidence. They argued that no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted, and the FIR did not name any accused. The arrest and recovery of weapons were doubtful as the police failed to document any prior clue about their involvement. The prosecution’s narrative of four unrelated individuals standing together at a public place just two days after the crime, with weapons matching the ones described in the FIR, appeared too convenient.
Additionally, three key eyewitnesses (PW-2, PW-3, and PW-12) categorically stated that the accused were not the robbers. Another witness (PW-14) admitted that it was too dark for identification. PW-1, the main prosecution witness, gave inconsistent statements—at one point claiming to have identified the accused at the police station, and at another denying having seen them since the incident. These inconsistencies, coupled with the lack of recovery of looted articles, created serious doubts about the prosecution’s case.
ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT (STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
The prosecution argued that conviction could be based on the testimonies of reliable witnesses, even if some witnesses turned hostile. PW-1, PW-5, and PW-6 consistently identified the accused in court. The prosecution emphasized that minor inconsistencies should not override the broader narrative that the robbery occurred and the accused were involved. The High Court had already assessed the evidence and found no reason to interfere with the trial court’s conviction.
The prosecution also maintained that the accused were apprehended based on credible information provided by PW-1 and that the recovery of weapons at the time of arrest was a strong corroborative factor. It urged the Supreme Court not to disturb concurrent findings of fact unless there was a clear miscarriage of justice.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court noted that while the prosecution established that a robbery took place, it failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants were the perpetrators. The arrest of four unrelated individuals standing together at a public place two days after the incident appeared improbable. Furthermore, no prior clue or investigation led the police to the accused before their alleged spontaneous identification by PW-1.
The court found inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding the manner of arrest. PW-1 initially claimed he identified the accused near the bus depot, but later stated he had not seen them after the crime. No police record indicated that PW-1’s tip-off was officially logged before the arrests. Additionally, the absence of looted articles weakened the prosecution’s case. The trial court had already acquitted the accused under Section 411 IPC (possession of stolen property), which cast further doubt on their alleged involvement.
Moreover, three eyewitnesses outright denied that the appellants were the culprits, and another stated that visibility conditions prevented identification. The remaining prosecution witnesses identified the accused in court years after the crime without any prior TIP, reducing the reliability of their statements.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court ruled there was insufficient evidence for the prosecution to prove the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The questionable arrest and the unconvincing reported weapon recovery, along with the absent Test Identification Parade, weakened the identification evidence. The appellants’ convictions were overturned and they were acquitted on all charges. The Court discharged all their bail bonds. Surrender was deemed unnecessary.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court ruled in *Wahid v.* State Govt. The NCT of Delhi’s approach stresses a scrupulous adherence to due process and it demands demonstrably reliable identification and irrefutable proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases. The prosecution’s case was severely weakened by the lack of a Test Identification Parade (TIP), conflicting witness statements and the absence of the stolen property. Suspicion alone, lacking corroborating evidence, is insufficient for the Court to render a conviction. The Court’s acquittal of the appellants upheld the important principle that justice requires not only correct outcomes but also the appearance of fairness, preventing unjust convictions based on errors or flawed evidence.
“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 SUBRAT ASHISH KHARE
