Summary of the Judgment
Case Name: Wahid & Anshu v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Date of Judgment: 4th February 2025
Judges: Hon'ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Hon'ble Justice Manoj Misra
Acts and Sections Involved: Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 392, 397, 411), Arms Act, 1959 (Section 25)
Cited Judgments: Manoj and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353 (Para 88)
Introduction
The Supreme Court’s decision in Wahid & Anshu v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi sets an important precedent in cases involving the identification of unknown accused and procedural adherence in criminal trials. The case revolved around a robbery that took place in a public transport vehicle, leading to the conviction of the appellants by the Trial Court and the Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court ultimately overturned the conviction, granting the benefit of doubt to the accused.
This article critically examines the key aspects of the judgment, with a focus on evidentiary standards, procedural safeguards, and the role of identification in criminal trials.
Factual Background
The case originated from a robbery incident on 3rd December 2011, where four persons boarded a Gramin Sewa vehicle at night, armed with knives, a screwdriver, and a country-made pistol. They allegedly robbed the passengers of their belongings and fled. The police, acting on information from the complainant (PW-1), arrested the accused on 5th December 2011 and claimed to have recovered weapons from them.
The Trial Court convicted Wahid and Anshu under Sections 392/397 IPC and sentenced them to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, while Anshu was additionally convicted under Section 25(1) of the Arms Act. The High Court upheld these convictions, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Key Issues Before the Supreme Court
Reliability of Identification – Was the identification of the accused by witnesses sufficient to sustain a conviction?
Manner of Arrest and Recovery – Did the prosecution provide a credible and legally sustainable explanation for the arrest and recovery of weapons?
Testimony Discrepancies – Were contradictions in witness testimonies sufficient to cast doubt on the prosecution’s case?
Absence of Test Identification Parade (TIP) – Did the failure to conduct a TIP affect the prosecution’s case?
Supreme Court’s Findings
1. Doubts Regarding Arrest and Recovery
The Court noted that the prosecution’s narrative regarding the arrest was “too well-crafted to be real.” The arrest of four accused from a public place, just two days after the incident, in possession of weapons matching the FIR description, was viewed with suspicion.
“The arrest of the accused persons in the manner alleged by the prosecution is highly doubtful and unworthy of acceptance.”
Additionally, the Court found inconsistencies in police testimonies regarding where and how they received information about the accused. The absence of an official entry in police records regarding this information further weakened the prosecution’s case.
2. Lack of Corroborative Evidence from Witnesses
While PW-1 identified the accused, three other passengers explicitly stated that the accused were not the robbers. Another witness (PW-14) mentioned that it was too dark to recognize anyone. Given these conflicting testimonies, the Court found it unsafe to rely solely on dock identification.
3. Absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP)
The Court emphasized that when accused persons are unknown and not named in the FIR, a TIP should have been conducted to ensure reliability. In this case, no TIP was conducted, and the witness (PW-1) identified the accused in court after 16 months of the incident. The Court held:
“In such circumstances, not much reliance can be placed on his statement.”
Similarly, another witness (PW-6) identified the accused four years after the incident, further reducing the credibility of in-court identification.
4. Failure to Recover Looted Articles
A crucial aspect that weighed in favour of the accused was the absence of recovered stolen property. Despite the prosecution’s claims, the trial court had already acquitted them of the charge under Section 411 IPC. The Supreme Court held that, without independent recovery of looted items, the prosecution’s case became weaker.
“Mere proof of robbery is not sufficient to hold that the accused persons who were put to trial were the ones who committed the offence.”
5. Procedural Irregularities and Benefit of Doubt
The Court also noted that the police’s failure to maintain proper records, the contradictions in testimony, and the general improbability of the prosecution’s version justified extending the benefit of doubt to the accused. The doctrine of proof beyond reasonable doubt was emphasized, reaffirming the principle that convictions must be based on clear and convincing evidence.
“Unfortunately, the High Court and the trial court were not circumspect while evaluating the prosecution evidence and thereby failed to test the prosecution evidence on the anvil of probability.”
Legal Precedents and Implications
The Supreme Court referred to its earlier ruling in Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) 2 SCC 353, reiterating the principle that courts must be cautious when the identification of accused persons is in question. This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural safeguards in criminal trials and underscores that mere suspicion cannot replace concrete evidence.
Additionally, the Court highlighted the necessity of objective scrutiny of prosecution evidence when cases involve unknown accused. This judgment will likely serve as a guiding principle for future cases where convictions are primarily based on identification evidence without proper procedural safeguards.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Wahid & Anshu v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi is a landmark ruling reaffirming the principle that criminal convictions must be based on reliable identification, corroborated evidence, and strict adherence to procedural law.
By setting aside the High Court’s judgment and acquitting the appellants, the Supreme Court has once again emphasized that the burden of proof lies squarely on the prosecution and that doubts must be resolved in favour of the accused.
This judgment serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, and lower courts that:
Identification of unknown accused must be properly verified through test identification parades.
Arrest and recovery must be credibly established with documentary evidence.
Courts must scrutinize prosecution evidence meticulously before upholding convictions.
Comentarios