LexWAHID versus STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 363 : 2025 INSC 145 Wahid v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2020) 04 February 2025 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration The appellants herein have preferred appeal against their conviction. Appellant-W was convicted by the Trial Court for offence punishable u/s.392 r/w. s.397 IPC and appellant-A was convicted u/s.392 r/w. s.397 IPC and s.25(1) of the Arms Act. Their appeals were dismissed by the impugned order of the High Court. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.392, 397, 411 – Arms Act, 1959 – s.25 – Prosecution case was that complainant (PW-1) while travelling along with other passengers in a Gramin Sewa (mini bus) got robbed by four persons armed with weapons – FIR was registered – Appellant-W was convicted by the Trial Court for offence punishable u/s.392 r/w. s.397 IPC, but acquitted u/s.411 IPC – Appellant-A was convicted and sentenced u/s. 392 r/w. s.397 IPC and s.25(1) of the Arms Act – Both the appellants filed appeal before the High Court which were dismissed – Correctness: Held: Having perused the materials on record, prosecution has succeeded in establishing that on the night of 3.12.2011 the travellers of Gramin Sewa were robbed by four persons – However, mere proof of robbery is not sufficient to hold that the accused persons who were put to trial were the ones who committed the offence – In the instant case, neither the accused persons were named nor they were known either to the complainant or the witnesses from before – Prosecution case is rather too simple, that is, two days later, on 5.12.2011, PW-1 himself noticed the accused persons standing near DTC Bus Depot; immediately thereafter he informed the police about their presence; the police went to the spot, arrested them, and, upon search of those persons, recovered * Author 364 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports from them weapons including screw driver, as described in the FIR, used by the robbers to threaten the passengers – The aforesaid prosecution story of four accused persons, not belonging to one family, being spotted together at a public place (i.e., bus depot), that too near a police station, just two days after the incident, that too with weapons corresponding to the weapons held by the robbers mentioned in the FIR, appears too well-crafted to be real – More so, the arrest memorandums of the four accused which indicate that they were arrested post 10 pm on 5.12.2011 – This was quite an odd hour for any person to venture out on a winter night – Such a story appears improbable because PW-1, who is not a resident, and had suffered an act of robbery just two days before, in ordinary circumstances would not venture out so late in the night, just to hand over receipt regarding purchase of his robbed mobile – These circumstances make the prosecution story relating to the manner of arrest highly improbable – There is discrepancy regarding receiving information about the presence of accused persons at the bus depot from PW-1 – According to PW-10, information was given when the police party, which had already left the police station, met PW-1 at the red light – Whereas according to PW-13 the police team left the police station with the complainant (i.e., PW-1) and at bus depot, PW-1 pointed towards the accused persons – PW-1’s statement-in-chief is also on similar terms as that of PW-13 – However, there is no disclosure in the testimony of any of the police witnesses that before leaving the police station, the information provided by PW-1 regarding spotting the accused was entered in any of the diaries maintained at the police station – From the statements of key witnesses, and on cumulative analysis of the circumstances, while taking into consideration the statements of accused-appellants recorded u/s. 313 of the CrPC that they were picked up from home and falsely implicated by the police, a serious doubt is cast on the manner in which the prosecution claims to have arrested the accused – Admittedly, no test identification parade was conducted and the statement of PW-1 was recorded in court on 28.05.2013, that is, after 16 months of the incident – In such circumstances, not much reliance can be placed on his statement – As far as dock identification is concerned, the remaining two eye witnesses identified the accused persons during their deposition in court in the year 2015, that is, after
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.