A dock identification of an accused, particularly when the witness had prior exposure to the accused at a police station and no independent corroborative evidence exists, is insufficient to sustain a conviction for robbery, necessitating the benefit of doubt for the accused.

JUDGMENT :

VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J.

1. Travelling through 10 witnesses during the trial, the DD No. 13A, which laid the foundation of the instant case shaped up in FIR No. 7/2001, which was registered on the complaint of one Gaje Singh. It albeit culminated into a chargesheet, containing allegations under Section 382/411/34 and 392/397 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC'), but ultimately resulted into conviction of the Appellant Rajinder herein under Section 394, 397 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The case under Section 25 Arms Act was separately registered. The charge was framed under Section 411 IPC also in which he was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.

2. It so happened that a robbery near Munirka Bus Stand was committed by a group of pick-pocketers on 13.01.2001 at about 11:00 AM in a bus plying on route no. 764. In fact, complainant Gaje Singh was carrying a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- in a bag, which he wanted to deposit in Corporation Bank, Vasant Vihar and while he was about to get down from the bus at Munirka, he realized that his bag was cut open. He immediately raised alarm and 5-6 boys got down from the bus, he suspected them to be the persons responsible and caught hold of one of them. He had to let go of that boy inasmuch as those 5-6 boys surrounded him and threatened him of bodily harm by knives. The person caught by him too whipped out a knife and threatened him which deterred him from any further action. The victim raised alarm while the assailants were making their escape good from the spot. The matter was reported to the police telephonically and DD No. 13A was recorded in Police Station Vasant Vihar. Subsequently, FIR No. 7/2001 on the complaint of victim Gaje Singh was registered.

3. A breakthrough to the case came on 10.02.2001 when a secret informer passed on the information about the movement of the Appellant herein as one of those pick pocketers / robbers together with others being available in the area of Munirka. Police laid a trap and 03 boys were seen coming towards the Munirka bus stand. On the pointing out by the secret informer, all three were apprehended including the present Appellant, who was found carrying a button actuated knife, which was seized and formalities thereafter were completed. An FIR under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, bearing registration no. 31/2001 was registered.

4. Subsequently trial of the Arms Act case was also joined with the Trial of case FIR No. 7/2001 in which charge under Section 394, 397, 411 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act was framed on 27.08.2001 to which the Appellant pleaded not guilty.

5. As referred above, the trial resulted into conviction under Section 394, 397 IPC and 25 of Arms Act. The Appellant / accused was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 07 years under Section 394 and 397 and was ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as fine, in default of which to undergo RI for a period of 01 month and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 he was sentenced to RI for a period of 01 month.

6. Against the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, while assailing the impugned judgment it is contended on behalf of the Appellant that the learned Trial Court has erred in basing its judgment only on the testimony of victim Gaje Singh without looking for any corroboration. The refusal on the part of the Appellant to participate in the TIP and its implications and attending circumstances should have been given due consideration. The joint trial of Sessions Case No. 24/2001 with 25/2001 i.e. FIR Nos. 7/2001 and 31/2001 was uncalled for and not proper in terms of Section 218, 219 Cr.P.C. In addition to that it is also submitted that the Appellant had valid reasons to refuse the TIP as he was in police custody for a day and the record nowhere reflects that he was kept in muffled face during the police custody remand. There was thus, every possibility of him being shown to the complainant and therefore based upon these facts and identification in the docks for the first time is not suffi