The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and corroborative evidence in criminal cases to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

S.P. Garg, J.

1. Aggrieved by a judgment dated 31.10.2015 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 52/2011 arising out of FIR No.156/2011 PS Saket whereby the appellant – Arun @ Vicky was convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 392 IPC, he has preferred the instant appeal. By an order dated 24.11.2015, he was sentenced to undergo RI for forty months with fine Rs.2,000/-.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge-sheet was that on 15.05.2011 at around 09.25 p.m. on Press Enclave Road near red light, Malviya Nagar, the appellant in furtherance of common intention with his associate -Amit Tomar committed robbery upon Ms. Blessing Ovakporaye and deprived her of a bag containing various articles.

3. In her written complaint (Ex.PW-8/A) lodged on 16.05.2011 complainant - Ms. Blessing Ovakporaye gave graphic account as to how and in what manner, she was robbed by two assailants who had arrived on a motorcycle, while she was travelling along with her sister – Mrs. Phillips in an auto on 15.05.2011 at around 09.10 p.m. Efforts were made to find out the assailants but to no effect. On 20.05.2011, on the basis of secret information a raiding party was organised and the appellant along with his associate were apprehended at around 11.30 p.m. Certain recoveries were effected from their possession. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The appellant declined to participate in the Test Identification Proceedings. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and his associate in the Court. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. DW-1 (Kanti) appeared in his defence. The trial resulted in conviction. It is relevant to note that co-accused – Amit Tomar was also held guilty and convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 392 IPC read with Section 397 IPC. It appears that conviction has not been challenged by him.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. At the outset, it may be mentioned that the prosecution was unable to produce the complainant, who was a foreigner, for examination before the Trial Court. It appears that she had already left India before the trial started. It is unclear if her sister – Mrs. Phillips had also left India along with her. The Investigating Officer has not given satisfactory answer. He admitted in the cross-examination that he had not verified the local address of the complainant and her sister. He was not aware if Mrs. Phillips had also left India.

5. Appellant’s conviction is primarily based upon the sole testimony of PW-2 (Vijay Gupta), the auto-driver. In his Court statement, he identified the appellant and his associate -Amit Tomar to be the assailants. On scrutinising the entire testimony of the complainant, certain glaring infirmities have emerged making it unsafe to place implicit reliance upon him. Admittedly, he was also a suspect in the incident and was called several times at the police station for enquiries. The occurrence took place on 15.05.2011 at around 09.25 p.m. Neither the complainant nor PW-2 (Vijay Gupta) lodged First Information Report soon after the occurrence. PW-2 (Vijay Gupta) did not raise alarm at the spot or attempted to apprehend the assailants. Despite having a mobile, he did not inform the police or PCR. He conveniently took the complainant and her sister to their place of residence. Only on 16.05.2011, he was allegedly called by the complainant and asked to accompany her to the police station. It is unclear as to how the complainant was aware of his contact number to remain in touch on 16.05.2011. The complainant in her complaint (Ex.PW-8/A) did not give any specific reason as why the incident was not reported to the police promptly particularly when she had lost her v