DATE: 14/02/2025
BENCH: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra
FACTS:
On the night of September 28, 1993, at around 11:30 p.m., a bus (Registration No. U.P. 42-A 5406) travelling to Raipur was intercepted by a group of dacoits. One of them, seated behind the driver, held a country-made pistol to his temple and forced him to stop. Four men already inside the bus, along with four others who boarded at the stop, began assaulting passengers and robbing their belongings. A shot was fired, injuring a passenger, before the culprits fled. The driver reported the incident at Ambikapur Police Station, and the police acted swiftly, setting up barricades. At around 3:00 a.m. on September 29, 1993, the police arrested Vinod @ Nasmulla and recovered a country-made pistol with five cartridges. A Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted the next day, where the accused was identified by the driver and a bus staff member, though another witness failed to recognize him. Based on an alleged confessional statement, co-accused Mohd. Kalam Ansari was also arrested and put on trial.
During the trial, three eyewitnesses testified to the dacoity, but none had participated in the TIP. PW-9 identified the appellant in court as the man who held a gun to the driver’s head. The Sessions Court, Surguja, Ambikapur, convicted Vinod @ Nasmulla under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the IPC and Section 25(1) (b) of the Arms Act, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment along with fines. The co-accused, Mohd. Kalam Ansari, was acquitted. The appellant challenged his conviction before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, but his appeal was dismissed on January 3, 2018. He has now appealed before the Supreme Court, contesting the High Court’s ruling.
ISSUES:
The main issue in this case is whether the evidence and witnesses provided by the Trial Court and later examined by the High Court prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The appeal is allowed, and the conviction of the appellant under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the IPC and Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act is set aside. The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, and he is therefore entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Consequently, the appellant is acquitted of all charges, and his bail bond stands discharged.
The court found that the prosecution's case rested primarily on dock identification by PW-9 and the alleged recovery of a country-made pistol from the appellant at the time of his arrest. However, PW-9's identification was unreliable as he did not participate in the Test Identification Parade (TIP) despite being available, and his prior familiarity with the accused raised doubts about the credibility of his testimony. Moreover, the key witnesses, including the bus driver, conductor, and cleaner, who had identified the accused during the TIP, were not examined at trial, rendering the TIP report devoid of evidentiary value. The absence of any looted articles recovered from the appellant further weakened the case.
Additionally, the circumstances surrounding the arrest and weapon recovery were highly suspect. The appellant was allegedly arrested at 3:00 a.m. by a single constable, who claimed he overpowered the accused despite the latter being armed. There were no injuries or resistance marks, and the pistol recovered from the appellant was not linked to any bullets or cartridges found at the crime scene. Furthermore, a nine-hour delay in preparing the seizure memo, along with discrepancies in the weapon's description, cast serious doubts on the prosecution's version of events. Given these inconsistencies and the lack of corroborative evidence, the court ruled in favour of the appellant, granting him the benefit of the doubt and acquitting him of all charges.
ANALYSIS:
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the fundamental principle of criminal law that an accused must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court identified significant gaps in the prosecution’s case, particularly the lack of reliable witness testimony and corroborative evidence. The dock identification by PW-9 was deemed unreliable due to his prior familiarity with the accused and his non-participation in the Test Identification Parade (TIP). Moreover, the non-examination of key eyewitnesses, such as the driver and bus staff who had identified the accused during the TIP, severely weakened the prosecution’s case. The court emphasized that a TIP serves as corroborative evidence, and without the testimony of those who identified the accused during the process, its evidentiary value is nullified. Additionally, the absence of any looted articles being recovered further diminished the prosecution’s ability to establish the accused’s involvement in the crime.
Furthermore, the court scrutinized the circumstances of the arrest and the recovery of the weapon, finding them highly questionable. The prosecution’s narrative of a single constable arresting an armed suspect without resistance or injury appeared implausible. The unexplained delay in preparing the seizure memo and discrepancies in the weapon’s description further cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence. The court recognized the possibility of police pressure to resolve a high-profile case, which could lead to wrongful implication. By setting aside the conviction, the court reinforced the necessity of stringent evidentiary standards and fair trial procedures, ensuring that an accused is not convicted based on weak or insufficient evidence.
info@adhwaitha.com
