Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction for Robbery and Assault: “Procedural Lapses in Investigation, Like Absence of Forensic Examination, Do Not Vitiate a Case if Supported by Credible Evidence”

Court’s Decision:

The Delhi High Court upheld the appellant’s conviction under Sections 394 (voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery) and 397 IPC (use of a deadly weapon during robbery) as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act. It dismissed the appeal, finding the evidence and the victim’s testimony reliable, and ruled that there was no reason to reduce the sentence. The appellant’s arguments regarding procedural deficiencies and lack of public witnesses were not persuasive.

Facts:

1. Incident Details: The victim, a 17-year-old student, was attacked by the appellant on June 13, 2018, around 9:40 PM. The appellant attempted to rob the victim’s bag, containing books and a mobile phone, as he returned from tuition.
2. Assault and Resistance: When the victim resisted, the appellant stabbed him with a knife, causing a contused lacerated wound (CLW) of 3×0.5 cm on his left buttock.
3. Apprehension: The appellant was apprehended on the spot by public members and handed over to the police. A knife was recovered from the appellant’s possession.
4. Evidence Collection: The victim’s bloodstained clothes and bag were seized, and a sketch of the knife was prepared. The victim was treated and discharged on the same day.

Issues:

1. Was the conviction of the appellant under Sections 394, 397 IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act supported by sufficient evidence?
2. Did the absence of independent public witnesses or forensic analysis of the knife affect the prosecution’s case?

Petitioner’s Arguments:

The appellant raised several objections to the prosecution’s case:

• Lack of Independent Witnesses: No public witnesses were presented, and their absence was not explained.
• Identification Issues: A Test Identification Parade (TIP) was not conducted, and the court identification of the appellant was questioned as biased.
• Knife Examination: The recovered knife was not sent to a forensic lab, raising doubts about its use in the crime.
• Procedural Gaps: Allegations of planting evidence (knife) by the police were made.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The prosecution argued in favor of the conviction:

• Credible Victim Testimony: The victim’s account was consistent and corroborated by evidence.
• Immediate Apprehension: The appellant was caught at the scene, making a TIP unnecessary.
• No Falsification: There was no evidence to suggest the victim had a motive to falsely implicate the appellant.
• Threats to Victim: The appellant’s family had tried to intimidate the victim, highlighting the appellant’s guilt.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Injured Witness Testimony: The court reiterated that the testimony of an injured witness holds a higher degree of reliability, as the injury guarantees their presence at the crime scene.
2. Necessity of TIP: A TIP is not mandatory when the accused is caught at the scene, as the victim has already seen the accused.
3. Deficiencies in Investigation: Procedural lapses, such as not forwarding the knife for forensic examination, do not automatically negate the prosecution’s case if other evidence is cogent and reliable.
4. No Public Witnesses: The absence of public witnesses does not weaken the case, especially when the victim’s testimony is credible and supported by circumstantial evidence.

Precedent Analysis:

The court referred to established principles that support reliance on the testimony of injured witnesses and clarified that minor discrepancies in the investigation do not undermine a case. The necessity for a TIP arises only when the accused is unknown to the witness.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Victim’s Testimony: The court found the victim’s testimony to be natural, convincing, and consistent. He had no reason to falsely implicate the appellant.
2. Apprehension at Scene: The appellant was caught immediately after the incident, corroborating the victim’s account.
3. Knife Use: While the knife was not forensically examined, the victim’s testimony about being stabbed was credible.
4. Impact of Threats: The court noted that the appellant had tried to intimidate the victim during trial, reinforcing the victim’s fear and credibility.
5. Other FIRs: The appellant’s involvement in other criminal cases was also considered, highlighting his habitual offending.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. The minor lapses in investigation did not affect the reliability of the victim’s testimony or the conviction. The appellant’s sentence was upheld, and his appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Implications:

1. Evidentiary Value of Injured Witness: This judgment reinforces the principle that an injured witness’s testimony is highly reliable and difficult to dismiss without compelling reasons.
2. No Automatic Acquittal for Procedural Lapses: The ruling demonstrates that procedural lapses in investigation, like the absence of forensic examination, do not vitiate a case if supported by credible evidence.
3. Deterrence of Witness Intimidation: The court strongly deprecated attempts to intimidate witnesses, ensuring their safety and the integrity of judicial proceedings.
4. Habitual Offenders: The judgment underlines the importance of considering an accused’s criminal history in sentencing, especially in violent offences.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Denies Disability Pension for Naval Officer; Cites Military Pension Regulations Requiring a Direct Causal Link to Service Conditions, Which Petitioner Failed to Meet