The Supreme Court of India, in its latest ruling in Wahid & Anshu vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, has reiterated the principle that when a First Information Report (FIR) is lodged against unknown persons, courts must meticulously examine the prosecution’s evidence before convicting the accused. The verdict was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra, who set aside the Delhi High Court’s decision upholding the convictions of the appellants.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an incident on December 3, 2011, where a group of four men allegedly boarded a Gramin Sewa minibus near Gagan Cinema, Delhi, and robbed passengers at gunpoint. The accused were armed with a country-made pistol, knives, and a screwdriver. The victims immediately reported the robbery to a nearby Police Control Room (PCR) unit, and an FIR was registered under Sections 392, 397, and 411 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, along with Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at PS Nand Nagri, Delhi (FIR No. 512/2011).
Following an investigation, four individuals—Wahid, Anshu, Narender, and Arif—were arrested on December 5, 2011, based on a tip-off allegedly provided by the complainant (PW-1). The trial court convicted Wahid and Anshu for robbery (Section 392 IPC) and armed robbery (Section 397 IPC), sentencing them to seven years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine. Additionally, Anshu was convicted under the Arms Act and sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment. The Delhi High Court upheld these convictions on November 15, 2018.
Key Legal Issues and Arguments
Doubtful Identification and Arrest
The FIR did not name any accused, and the robbery occurred in the darkness of the night.
The arrest of all four accused from a public place (DTC Bus Depot, Nand Nagri) just two days after the crime, based solely on the complainant’s identification, was questioned by the defense.
No Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted to verify the complainant’s claim, and other eyewitnesses failed to identify the accused.
Lack of Recovery of Looted Items
The trial court acquitted the accused of Section 411 IPC (possession of stolen property) due to the absence of recovery of stolen items.
The alleged recovery of weapons from the accused was questioned as fabricated, as a prosecution witness (PW-1) admitted in cross-examination that he was made to sign blank papers.
Contradictions in Police and Witness Testimonies
Inconsistencies in prosecution witness statements regarding how and where the accused were identified.
The timing and circumstances of the arrest appeared staged, given that four unrelated individuals were allegedly spotted together near a police station carrying the same weapons described in the FIR.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that trial courts must be cautious while convicting individuals in cases where the FIR is against unknown persons. The Court made the following key observations:
“Where an FIR is registered against unknown persons, and the accused are not known to the witnesses, the manner in which the investigation proceeds assumes great significance. Courts must carefully scrutinize how the police identified the accused, the credibility of the identification process, and the recovery of evidence.”
“A test identification parade (TIP) is crucial in such cases, as it serves as an independent verification of the complainant’s claim. In this case, the absence of TIP weakens the prosecution’s case.”
“The arrest of all four accused from one place, that too carrying the exact weapons described in the FIR, appears too convenient to be true. Courts must be vigilant to avoid wrongful convictions based on manufactured evidence.”
The bench also highlighted the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence, stating: “The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If two views are possible, the court must adopt the view that favors the accused.”
Final Decision
In light of these findings, the Supreme Court acquitted Wahid and Anshu, ruling that their conviction was based on unreliable evidence and uncorroborated identification. The Court ordered that they need not surrender, and their bail bonds stand discharged.
