Wahid vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Held: Having perused the materials on record, prosecution has succeeded in establishing that on the night of 3.12.2011 the travellers of Gramin Sewa were robbed by four persons – However, 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 – In the instant case, neither the accused persons were named nor they were known either to the complainant or the witnesses from before – Prosecution case is rather too simple, that is, two days later, on 5.12.2011, PW-1 himself noticed the accused persons standing near DTC Bus Depot; immediately thereafter he informed the police about their presence; the police went to the spot, arrested them, and, upon search of those persons, recovered from them weapons including screw driver, as described in the FIR, used by the robbers to threaten the passengers – The aforesaid prosecution story of four accused persons, not belonging to one family, being spotted together at a public place (i.e., bus depot), that too near a police station, just two days after the incident, that too with weapons corresponding to the weapons held by the robbers mentioned in the FIR, appears too well-crafted to be real – More so, the arrest memorandums of the four accused which indicate that they were arrested post 10 pm on 5.12.2011 – This was quite an odd hour for any person to venture out on a winter night – Such a story appears improbable because PW-1, who is not a resident, and had suffered an act of robbery just two days before, in ordinary circumstances would not venture out so late in the night, just to hand over receipt regarding purchase of his robbed mobile – These circumstances make the prosecution story relating to the manner of arrest highly improbable – There is discrepancy regarding receiving information about the presence of accused persons at the bus depot from PW-1 – According to PW-10, information was given when the police party, which had already left the police station, met PW-1 at the red light – Whereas according to PW-13 the police team left the police station with the complainant (i.e., PW-1) and at bus depot, PW-1 pointed towards the accused persons – PW-1’s statement-in-chief is also on similar terms as that of PW-13 – However, there is no disclosure in the testimony of any of the police witnesses that before leaving the police station, the information provided by PW-1 regarding spotting the accused was entered in any of the diaries maintained at the police station – From the statements of key witnesses, and on cumulative analysis of the circumstances, while taking into consideration the statements of accused-appellants recorded u/s. 313 of the CrPC that they were picked up from home and falsely implicated by the police, a serious doubt is cast on the manner in which the prosecution claims to have arrested the accused – Admittedly, no test identification parade was conducted and the statement of PW-1 was recorded in court on 28.05.2013, that is, after 16 months of the incident – In such circumstances, not much reliance can be placed on his statement – As far as dock identification is concerned, the remaining two eye witnesses identified the accused persons during their deposition in court in the year 2015, that is, after nearly 4 years of the incident – PW-6, resident of Aligarh, though stated that he identified the accused persons on 06.12.2011 while they were in the police lock-up, admitted that he went to the police station without being summoned at 07:30 a.m – His statement does not inspire confidence – In the circumstance, when three eye witnesses stated that accused persons were not the ones who committed the crime and another one stated that it was too dark, therefore, he could not recognise, bearing in mind that the accused persons were not known to the eye witnesses from before, not much reliance can be placed on the dock identification – In such circumstances, and in absence of corroborative evidence of recovery of looted articles at the instance of or from the accused persons, in view of this Court, the appellants should have been given the benefit of doubt. [Paras 13, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – When FIR is lodged against unknown persons:

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