Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted two appellants convicted of armed robbery of passengers in a Gramin Sewa vehicle, holding that the prosecution story of the complainant spotting all four unknown accused together near a bus depot two days later, with weapons matching the FIR, was improbable and riddled with discrepancies, that the recoveries fell with it, and that belated dock identification without a test identification parade, contradicted by other eyewitnesses, could not sustain the conviction.
Issues
- Whether the accused, unnamed in the FIR and unknown to the witnesses, were proved to be the robbers.
- Whether the prosecution version of the manner of arrest and the recovery of weapons at the time of arrest was credible.
- Whether dock identification by three of seven eyewitnesses, made 16 months to four years after a night incident without a test identification parade, was reliable.
Provisions considered
- Section 392 read with Section 397, Indian Penal Code, 1860The appellants were convicted of robbery with use of deadly weapons and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The Court accepted that the robbery occurred but held that the appellants' identity as the robbers was not proved, and set aside the conviction. (¶¶ 2, 3, 13, 24, 25)
- Section 411, Indian Penal Code, 1860The trial court acquitted the appellants under this section; the absence of any recovery of looted articles from them meant there was no corroboration for the doubtful arrest story. (¶¶ 3, 16, 24)
- Section 25(1), Arms Act, 1959Appellant Anshu's conviction for possession of a country-made pistol rested on the recovery at the time of arrest; once the manner of arrest was disbelieved, that recovery was rejected and he was acquitted of this charge as well. (¶¶ 3, 21, 25)
- Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The appellants stated that they were picked up from home and falsely implicated; the Court took these statements into account in holding the alleged manner of arrest highly doubtful. (¶ 20)
Held
- Proof that a robbery took place does not establish that the persons tried committed it. Where the FIR is against unknown persons who are strangers to the witnesses, the court must closely examine how the investigators got a clue to the accused, how they were arrested and how they were identified; recovery of looted articles on their disclosure or from their possession assumes importance as corroboration. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- The story that four unrelated accused were found together at a public place near a police station after 10 p.m. on a winter night, two days after the robbery, carrying weapons matching those in the FIR, and spotted by a complainant who lived elsewhere and was out late to hand over a mobile receipt, was too well-crafted to be real and called for corroboration, which was lacking as no looted article was recovered from the appellants. (¶¶ 15, 16)
- The police witnesses gave inconsistent accounts of where the complainant told them of the accused, no diary entry of such information was shown, the complainant said in cross-examination that he saw the accused on the date of occurrence and then only in court, and he admitted signing blank papers; with the appellants' Section 313 statements, this made the alleged arrest highly doubtful, a point the courts below failed to test on the anvil of probability. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20)
- Once the manner of arrest is doubted, recovery of weapons said to have been made at the time of arrest cannot be accepted, particularly when the articles are not so unique that they could not be arranged. (¶ 21)
- Where the arrest story of unnamed and unknown accused is disbelieved, the court must proceed cautiously with the remaining evidence. Dock identification of strangers after a night incident, made 16 months to about four years later without any test identification parade, while three other eyewitnesses including the driver said the accused were not the robbers and another could not recognise anyone in the dark, deserved little reliance; the claim of one witness, a resident of Aligarh, to have identified the accused in the lock-up after going to the police station unsummoned at 7:30 a.m. did not inspire confidence. (¶¶ 22, 23)
- Without corroboration by recovery of looted articles, the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt. (¶ 24)
Result
Appeals allowed; the common judgment of the High Court dated 15.11.2018 set aside and the appellants acquitted of all charges; being on bail, they need not surrender and their bail bonds were discharged.