2025 Supreme(SC) 267

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Manoj Misra, JJ.
Wahid – Appellant
Versus
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2020
With
Anshu – Appellant
Versus
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 202 of 2020
Decided On : 04-02-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) FIR – In cases where FIR is lodged against unknown persons and persons made accused are not known to witnesses, material collected during investigation plays important role to determine whether there is credible case against accused.
(2) Robbery and possession of stolen articles – Once there is doubt in manner in which accused were stated to have been arrested, alleged recovery of screw driver, knives and country-made pistol made at the time of arrest is rendered unacceptable.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 392/397/411 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 309/311/317] – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25 – Robbery and possession of stolen articles – Conviction and sentence – Neither accused persons were named nor they were known either to complainant or witnesses from before – Circumstances make prosecution story relating to manner of arrest highly improbable – It should have put court on guard as to look for corroborative pieces of evidence before accepting prosecution story as credible – One such corroborative piece of evidence could be recovery of looted articles from accused which, in present case, is absent inasmuch as trial court has already acquitted appellant(s) of charge of offence punishable under Section 411 IPC – High Court and trial court were not circumspect while evaluating prosecution evidence and thereby failed to test prosecution evidence on anvil of probability as was required in facts of the case – Arrest of accused persons in the manner alleged by prosecution is highly doubtful and unworthy of acceptance – Once there is doubt in manner in which accused were stated to have been arrested, alleged recovery of screw driver, knives and country-made pistol made at the time of arrest is rendered unacceptable – Weapons/articles allegedly recovered are not so unique that they cannot be arranged – This is a case of night incident but no test identification parade was conducted – Three eye witnesses stated that accused persons were not the ones who committed crime – In absence of corroborative evidence of recovery of looted articles at instance of or from accused persons, this was a fit case where appellants should have been given benefit of doubt – Appellants acquitted. (Paras 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 154 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 173] – FIR – In cases where FIR is lodged against unknown persons and persons made accused are not known to witnesses, material collected during investigation plays important role to determine whether there is credible case against accused – In such type of cases, courts have to meticulously examine evidence regarding (a) how investigating agency derived clue about involvement of accused in crime; (b) manner in which accused was arrested; and (c) manner in which accused was identified – Apart from that, discovery/ recovery of any looted article on disclosure made by or at instance of accused, or from his possession, assumes importance to lend credence to prosecution case. (Para 14)

Facts of the case:

Appellants along with two others were tried for offences punishable under Sections 392/397/411 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959. Appellant Wahid was convicted by Trial Court for offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC, but acquitted under Section 411 IPC. For his conviction under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC, Wahid was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years with fine of Rs. 5000/-, coupled with a default sentence of two years. Insofar as appellant Anshu is concerned, he was convicted and sentenced under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC to seven years of rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, coupled with a default sentence of two years; besides that he was also convicted for offence punishable under Section 25(1) of Arms Act and sentenced thereunder to three years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, coupled with a default sentence of six months. Aggrieved by dismissal of their appeals, appellants have preferred these appeals.

Findings of Court:

Impugned judgment and order of High Court is set aside. Appellants are acquitted of the charge(s) for which they were tried and convicted. They are reported to be on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged.

Result : Appeals allowed. Accused acquitted.