Supreme Court Acquits Robbery Accused: “Manner of Arrest Highly Doubtful, No Proper Identification Conducted; Benefit of Doubt Granted as Prosecution Failed to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt”

Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of two individuals accused of committing robbery with deadly weapons under Sections 392 and 397 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The Court found that:

1. The prosecution’s version of arrest was highly suspicious—the accused were allegedly found at a bus depot two days after the crime, which seemed staged.
2. The accused were never identified properly, as no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted.
3. Three out of seven prosecution witnesses denied that the accused were the robbers.
4. No stolen goods were found on the accused.
5. The Supreme Court applied the principle of “benefit of doubt”, stating that the prosecution had failed to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court ordered the immediate acquittal of the appellants, confirming that they need not surrender and their bail bonds were discharged.

Facts of the Case

The Robbery Incident (December 3, 2011)

• The complainant (PW-1) was traveling in a Gramin Sewa mini-bus in Delhi along with four passengers, a driver, and a conductor.
• Around 11:25 PM, four unknown persons boarded the bus near Gagan Cinema.
• These men threatened passengers with a knife, a screwdriver, and a country-made pistol.
• They looted cash and mobile phones from the passengers before fleeing.
• The driver took the bus to the nearest Police Control Room (PCR), where a First Information Report (FIR No. 512 of 2011) was lodged at PS Nand Nagri, Delhi.

The Arrest (December 5, 2011)

• According to the police version, the complainant (PW-1) spotted four men standing near a DTC bus depot in Nand Nagri.
• He immediately informed the police, who arrested them at 10 PM that night.
• During the arrest, the police claimed to have recovered weapons matching those used in the crime:
  • A country-made pistol from one accused
  • A screwdriver from another
  • A knife from a third
• However, no stolen cash or mobile phones were found on the accused.

Trial Court Conviction (2017)

• The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 392 and 397 IPC (robbery with a deadly weapon) and sentenced them to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.
• One of the accused was also convicted under Section 25(1) of the Arms Act and sentenced to an additional three years.
• However, the court acquitted the accused of charges under Section 411 IPC (possession of stolen property) due to lack of evidence.

High Court Dismissal of Appeal (2018)

• The Delhi High Court dismissed the accused’s appeal, upholding the conviction.
• The High Court reasoned that three witnesses identified the accused in court, which was enough to sustain the conviction.

Supreme Court Appeal

• The appellants challenged the conviction in the Supreme Court of India, arguing that their arrest was fabricated and the identification evidence was unreliable.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Was the arrest of the appellants based on credible evidence?
2. Did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime?
3. Was the identification of the accused in court reliable, considering no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted?
4. Did the recovery of weapons establish the accused’s involvement in the robbery?
5. Should the accused have been granted the benefit of doubt?

Petitioner’s Arguments (Appellants)

The appellants contended that they were falsely implicated and raised several key issues:

1. Suspicious Arrest & Lack of Identification Process
   • The FIR did not name any accused, meaning the police had no prior leads.
   • The complainant allegedly spotted them two days later at a bus depot, which was highly improbable.
   • There was no independent witness to verify that the police arrested them from the bus depot.
   • No Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted to confirm their identity.
   • The witnesses saw the accused only in court after several years, making dock identification unreliable.
2. Contradictions in Witness Testimonies
   • Three key prosecution witnesses (PW-2, PW-3, and PW-12) explicitly stated that the accused were NOT the robbers.
   • Another witness (PW-14) stated that it was too dark to recognize the robbers.
   • PW-1 admitted in cross-examination that he was made to sign blank papers, raising doubts about the authenticity of police documents.
3. No Recovery of Stolen Property
   • No looted mobile phones or cash were found on the accused.
   • The trial court itself acquitted them under Section 411 IPC, proving there was no direct link between the accused and the robbery.
4. Fabrication of Evidence
   • The complainant’s statement in court contradicted the police’s version of when and where the accused were arrested.
   • One witness stated that he saw the accused only on the date of the incident and then in court, contradicting the claim that he identified them earlier.

Respondent’s Arguments (State)

The State argued that the conviction should be upheld, relying on:

1. Credibility of Witnesses:
   • Three key witnesses (PW-1, PW-5, and PW-6) identified the accused in court, which was sufficient to prove guilt.
2. Arrest Based on Direct Identification:
   • The complainant (PW-1) directly pointed out the accused, leading to their arrest.
3. No Motive for False Implication:
   • The State argued that there was no reason for the complainant to falsely implicate the accused.
4. Weapon Recovery:
   • The recovery of a screwdriver, knife, and country-made pistol from the accused at the time of arrest corroborated the prosecution case.

Analysis of the Law

1. Importance of Test Identification Parade (TIP)
   • The Supreme Court referred to Manoj & Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) 2 SCC 353, which held that in cases where the accused are unknown, a TIP is essential to verify identity.
   • Since no TIP was conducted, the dock identification in court after years was unreliable.
2. Benefit of Doubt in Criminal Law
   • The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
   • Since three witnesses denied the accused’s involvement and no stolen goods were recovered, the accused deserved the benefit of doubt.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

1. The Arrest Story is Unbelievable
   • The idea that four unrelated men stood together at a bus depot two days after the crime, armed with the same weapons used in the robbery, was too convenient.
   • The police’s failure to document when they received the tip-off further weakened their case.
2. The Identification Process was Flawed
   • No TIP was conducted, making identification in court unreliable.
   • The delay of four years between the crime and trial meant witness memory was unreliable.
3. No Evidence Directly Linked the Accused to the Crime
   • No stolen property was found, and the trial court already acquitted the accused under Section 411 IPC.
   • Prosecution witnesses contradicted each other, weakening the case.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, overturning the High Court’s decision.
• The accused were given the benefit of doubt.
• The Court ordered that the accused need not surrender, and their bail bonds were discharged.

Implications of the Judgment

• Emphasizes the importance of TIPs in cases with unknown accused.
• Strengthens safeguards against wrongful convictions based on weak evidence.
• Highlights the need for courts to carefully scrutinize arrests based on unreliable police procedures.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Refers Interpretation of Section 50 of Cr.P.C. to Larger Bench: “Lack of Clarity in Arrest Procedures and Non-Compliance with Mandatory Written Grounds of Arrest Violates Fundamental Rights Under Articles 21 & 22 of the Constitution”