MOHD. ANWAR versus THE STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI)

Citation: [2020] 7 S.C.R. 150 · Decided: 19-08-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
150
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
MOHD. ANWAR
v.
THE STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI)
(Criminal Appeal No. 1551 of 2010)
AUGUST 19, 2020
[N. V. RAMANA, S. ABDUL NAZEER AND
SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 394 – Arms Act, 1959 – s. 25 – The
prosecution case was that victim-complainant was caught hold by
three boys armed with weapons and extorted Rs. 30,000/- from him
– FIR was registered – Police apprehended all three accused persons
and they confessed committing the said robbery – They were produced
before the Metropolitan Magistrate for a Test Identification Parade,
which they refused to undergo – The Trial Court held all three
accused guilty of robbery with an attempt to cause grievous hurt
and sentenced them to 7 years rigorous imprisonment u/s. 397/ 34
of IPC, 5 years rigorous imprisonment u/s. 392/34 of IPC and 2
years rigorous imprisonment u/s. 25 of the Arms Act – The High
Court dismissed the charge u/s. 397 and instead convicted u/s. 394
with a reduced sentence of only two years rigorous imprisonment –
Before the Supreme Court, it was contended by the appellant that
he was juvenile at the time of occurrence and was undergoing
treatment for a mental disorder – Held: Testimonies of the witnesses
were impeccable and corroborative of each other – The crime of
robbery with hurt was established – The complainant had no motive
to falsely implicate the appellant – The refusal to participate in the
TIP proceedings undoubtedly establish the appellant’s guilty
conscience – Pleas of unsoundness of mind or mitigating
circumstances like juvenility of age, ought to have been raised during
the trial – No evidence in the form of a birth certificate, school
record or medical test was brought forth nor any expert examination
has been sought by the appellant to prove his age – Instead, the
statement recorded u/s. 313 Cr. P.C. showed that the appellant was
above 18 years of age – Further, the plea of mental disorder also
remained unsubstantiated – The conduct of appellant like running
away from the spot of crime and thereafter an attempt to escape
[2020] 7 S.C.R. 150
150
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
151
show elevated level of mental intellect – The answers recorded u/s.
313 Cr. P.C. were also not mechanical or laconic – Further, the
appellant is now as per record untraceable – The plea of mental
illness is a made-up story – Consequently, appellant’s bail bonds
are cancelled and the respondent-State directed to take appellant
into custody to serve the remainder of his sentence.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The testimonies of the witnesses are indeed
impeccable and corroborative of each other. The crime of robbery
with hurt has been established by the testimony of PW-1 and the
other evidence on record. The complainant (PW-1) had no motive
to falsely implicate the appellant and/or to allow the real culprits
to go scot-free. The refusal to participate in the TIP proceedings
and the lack of any reasons on the spot, undoubtedly establish
the appellant’s guilty conscience and ought to be given substantial
weight. The three-day delay in registration of FIR, as projected
by the appellant, is devoid of factual basis. The original record
shows that the complaint was, in fact, registered within a few hours
of the incident on 18.05.2001. It was because of preliminary police
enquiry that another two days passed between reporting and
subsequent lodging of FIR on 20.05.2001. [Para 13][155-G-H;
156-A-B]
2. Pleas of unsoundness of mind under Section 84 of IPC
or mitigating circumstances like juvenility of age, ordinarily ought
to be raised during the trial itself. Belated claims not only prevent
proper production and appreciation of evidence, but they also
undermine the genuineness of the defence’s case. [Para 14]
[156-B-C]
3. As noted by the High Court, no evidence in the form of a
birth certificate, school record or medical test was brought forth;
nor any expert examination has been sought by the appellant.
Instead, the statement recorded u/s. 313 CrPC shows that the
appellant was above 18 years around the time of the incident,
which is a far departure from the claimed age of 15 years.
[Para 15][156-C-D]
4. The plea of mental disorder too remains unsubstantiated.
No deposition was made by any witness, nor did the appellant
MOHD. ANWAR v. THE STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
152
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
himself claim any such impairment during his s.313 CrPC
statement. On the contrary, his conduct of runni

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.