Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, S. ABDUL NAZEER, SURYA KANT, JJ.
Mohd. Anwar – Appellant
Versus
The State (N.C.T. of Delhi) – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1551 of 2010, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3388 of 2010
Decided On : 19-08-2020
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 394 read with Section 84 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25 – Robbery – Conviction and sentence – Defence plea of mental insanity – Testimonies of witnesses are impeccable and corroborative of each other – Crime of robbery with hurt has been established by testimony of complainant and the other evidence on record – Complainant had no motive to falsely implicate appellants and/or to allow real culprits to go scot-free – Refusal to participate in TIP proceedings and lack of any reasons on spot, establish appellant’s guilty conscience and ought to be given substantial weight – Three-day delay in registration of FIR, as projected by appellant, is devoid of factual basis – Statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. shows that appellant was above 18 years around time of incident which is a far departure from claimed age of 15 years – Plea of mental disorder remains unsubstantiated – Conduct of running away from spot of crime as well as attempt to escape from bus evidence an elevated level of mental intellect of accused – Appellate Courts ought not to routinely re-appreciate evidence in a criminal case because trial Court is best placed to holistically appreciate demeanour of a witness and other evidence on record – Given concurrent finding of Courts below on key aspects of robbery, it is not a fit case for re-appraisal of evidence – Given inability of appellant to establish juvenility or insanity, raise any doubt regarding guilt; and considering detailed reasons accorded by High Court, reliable testimony of twelve witnesses as well as leniency shown in sentencing, no reasons to interfere with impugned order(s) – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 12, 13, 15, 16 and 19)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 84 – Plea of mental insanity – Mere production of photocopy of an OPD card and statement of mother on affidavit have little, if any, evidentiary value – In order to successfully claim defence of mental unsoundness under Section 84 of IPC, accused must show by preponderance of probabilities that he/she suffered from a serious-enough mental disease or infirmity which would affect individual’s ability to distinguish right from wrong – It must be established that accused was afflicted by such disability particularly at the time of crime and that but for such impairment, crime would not have been committed – Pleas of unsoundness of mind under Section 84 of IPC or mitigating circumstances like juvenility of age, ordinarily ought to be raised during trial itself – Belated claims not only prevent proper production and appreciation of evidence but they also undermine genuineness of defence’s case. (Paras 14 and 17)
Facts of the case:
Present criminal appeal, which has been heard through video conferencing, is at the instance of Mohd. Anwar who impugns judgment dated 22.02.2010 of the High Court of Delhi whereby his appeal against a judgment dated 27/29.04.2004 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma, convicting and sentencing him under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, was turned down.
Findings of Court:
The plea of mental disorder too remains unsubstantiated. No deposition was made by any witness, nor did the appellant himself claim any such impairment during his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement. On the contrary, his conduct of running away from the spot of the crime on 17.05.2001 as well as the attempt to escape from the bus on 20.05.2001 evidence an elevated level of mental intellect.
Result : Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
SURYA KANT, J.
1. The present criminal appeal, which has been heard through video conferencing, is at the instance of Mohd. Anwar who impugns the judgment dated 22.02.2010 of the High Court of Delhi whereby his appeal against a judgment dated 27/29.04.2004 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma, convicting and sentencing him under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Section 25 of the Arms Act 1959, was turned down.
FACTS & CASE HISTORY
2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim-complainant, Tabban Khan (PW-1), was riding his motorcycle on the main road near Shahdara around 11:30 PM on 17.05.2001, when he stopped to ease himself near a fishpond. Suddenly, three boys (including the appellant) caught hold of him and started assaulting him. They were armed with a knife and revolver. Upon extortion, the complainant handed over a bundle of five-hundred rupees notes totalling around thirty thousand (Rs. 30,000) to the boys, who then contemplated murdering him by stabbing, so that he would not report the matter to the police. Hearing commotion of passers-by, the three boys left the complainant and ran towards a warehouse. The complainant then returned to his home and reported the matter to the jurisdictional police the following evening. This complaint was subsequently converted into an FIR on 20.05.2001 at 7:45 PM.
3. A police party, on 20.05.2001 at about 8:30 PM, during routine checking of buses near GT Road, noticed three boys surreptitiously de-boarding a bus through the rear door. On suspicion, Constable Vinod Kumar (PW-4) and Constable Prakash Chand (PW-7) chased and apprehended them and recovered a prohibited buttondar knife from the appellant and his co-accused. They also confessed to having robbed the present complainant. All three were arrested and produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate for a Test Identification Parade (“TIP”) the following day, which they refused to undergo.
4. The prosecution examined twelve witnesses during trial which included the victim-complainant (PW-1), the Metropolitan Magistrate who sought to conduct the TIP proceedings (PW-10) and a total of ten policemen. Sketches of the knife, arrest memos, site plans, and recovered money and weapons were admitted in evidence. The appellant and his co-accused plainly denied the allegations and claimed that the case was planted by the police upon their failure to pay a bribe of rupees twenty-five thousand. They, however, led no evidence in defence.
5. The trial Court discarded the defence plea for want of supporting material, and further found the likelihood of false implication being remote. All twelve prosecution witnesses were noted to have withstood cross-examination and their testimonies were designated as being stellar. The trial Court explained the absence of any public witness as being nothing abnormal given the circumstances of the case. The unreasoned refusal of the accused to take part in the TIP proceedings was found to be highly incriminating and substantiating their guilt.
6. The trial Court, thus, held all three accused guilty of robbery with attempt to cause grievous hurt and sentenced them to seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 397/34 of IPC, five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 392/34 of IPC, two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 25 of the Arms Act and fine of rupees five thousand (or imprisonment of six months in lieu thereof).
7. The appellant approached the High Court which dismissed the charge under Section 397 of IPC and instead convicted him under Section 394 with a reduced sentence of only two years rigorous imprisonment. Another co-accused, Mohd. Aslam, was acquitted on charges of robbery as the version of the complainant qua him was found doubtful. The High Court noted that although as per the FIR three ‘unidentified’ persons had robbed the victim but PW-1 admitted during his cross-examination that he previously knew Mohd. Aslam who was a friend of his children.
8. As
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
