Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Dacoity: “Prosecution Failed to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt”; Witness Contradictions and Lack of Forensic Evidence Fatal to Case

Court’s Decision:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the convictions under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act. It held that the prosecution had failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court granted the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, acquitting him of all charges.

Facts:

1. Incident:
   On the night of September 28, 1993, a bus carrying 35 passengers was looted by eight armed men while traveling to Raipur. One of the culprits pointed a pistol at the driver to stop the bus, after which the men robbed the passengers of their belongings, injuring one person.
2. Investigation and Arrest:
   • The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged at the police station soon after the incident.
   • The appellant was allegedly arrested on the night of September 29, 1993, at around 3 a.m., carrying a country-made pistol with live and empty cartridges.
3. Charges:
   The appellant was charged with dacoity under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the IPC and for illegal possession of arms under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
4. Trial and Conviction:
   The trial court convicted the appellant based on dock identification by one witness (PW-9) and the recovery of a country-made pistol during his arrest. The High Court upheld the conviction, leading to the appellant’s appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

1. Was the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the dock identification by a solitary witness, reliable?
2. Was the manner of the appellant’s arrest and the recovery of the country-made pistol credible?
3. Did the prosecution meet the standard of proof required for conviction in criminal cases?

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Failure to Produce Key Witnesses:
   The prosecution did not produce the bus driver, cleaner, or conductor, who had identified the appellant during the Test Identification Parade (TIP). These witnesses would have been the best evidence to corroborate the prosecution’s case.
2. Unreliable Witness:
   • PW-9, the sole identifying witness, was a police officer whose presence on the bus during the incident was questionable.
   • He admitted to having seen the appellant before, further reducing the reliability of his identification.
3. No Recovery of Looted Items:
   No stolen articles were recovered from the appellant or linked to him.
4. Doubtful Arrest:
   • The appellant’s alleged arrest in the middle of the night, when PW-5 was alone and attending nature’s call, was improbable.
   • Despite carrying a loaded pistol, the appellant allegedly did not use it to evade arrest.
5. No Forensic Evidence:
   The country-made pistol recovered from the appellant was not linked to any bullet or cartridge found at the crime scene.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Proof of Dacoity:
   The prosecution argued that the dacoity and the appellant’s role in the crime were established beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Dock Identification:
   PW-9 identified the appellant as one of the culprits who pointed the pistol at the driver. The prosecution maintained that there was no reason for PW-9 to falsely implicate the appellant.
3. Recovery of Arms:
   The appellant was arrested with a working country-made pistol, supporting his involvement in the crime.
4. Timely TIP:
   The prosecution highlighted that a TIP was conducted promptly, and the appellant was identified by witnesses.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Evidentiary Value of TIPs:
   The Court emphasized that a Test Identification Parade (TIP) is not substantive evidence. It is only corroborative, meant to strengthen testimony given in court. If a witness who identified the accused in the TIP is not produced at trial, the TIP report loses evidentiary value.
2. Dock Identification by PW-9:
   The Court found that PW-9’s dock identification was unreliable. His prior acquaintance with the appellant, combined with his non-participation in the TIP, undermined his testimony.
3. Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases:
   The prosecution failed to meet the standard of proof required to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of corroborative evidence, such as recovery of looted items or forensic linking of the pistol to the crime, weakened the case.

Precedent Analysis:

The Court relied on the following precedents to assess the evidentiary value of TIPs and dock identification:

• Rameshwar Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir: TIPs serve only as corroborative evidence, not as substantive evidence.
• Hari Nath v. State of U.P.: Substantive evidence must come from testimony in court, with TIPs merely serving to corroborate or contradict the witness.
• Umesh Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand: The reliability of identification evidence depends on the circumstances in which it was conducted.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Withholding of Key Witnesses:
   The failure to produce the bus driver, cleaner, and conductor who participated in the TIP created a significant evidentiary gap.
2. Unreliable Arrest Story:
   • The Court noted discrepancies in the seizure memo and the delay in producing the seized pistol.
   • The circumstances of the arrest, where a single police officer allegedly overpowered the appellant without any resistance, were implausible.
3. Lack of Corroboration:
   • No looted items were recovered from the appellant or linked to him.
   • The recovered pistol was not connected to the crime scene through forensic evidence.
4. Benefit of the Doubt:
   Given the weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, the Court held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The convictions and sentences were set aside, and the appellant, already on bail, was discharged.

Implications:

1. Importance of Procedural Fairness:
   The judgment reinforces the necessity of adhering to procedural safeguards, such as examining key witnesses and ensuring credible evidence.
2. Higher Burden of Proof:
   It underscores the high standard of proof required in criminal cases, particularly in serious offenses like dacoity.
3. Prevention of False Convictions:
   The ruling serves as a reminder that the judiciary must remain vigilant against the possibility of false implications, especially in cases relying on circumstantial evidence.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Cancels Trademark Registration for “ROHIT”: “Confusion and Deception Among Competing Marks Are Inevitable; Prior User Principle and Fabricated Evidence Exposed”