Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 136 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 392, 397, 411 – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25

Unreliable Arrest and Recovery – The Supreme Court found that the manner of arrest and the recovery of weapons from the accused was highly doubtful. The accused were allegedly spotted together at a public place, two days after the incident, in possession of weapons identical to those mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR). Such a story was found to be too convenient to be credible. (Para 15-16)

No Test Identification Parade (TIP) – The accused were unknown to the complainant and other witnesses. However, no TIP was conducted. The identification of the accused in court, after a long delay, was deemed unreliable. (Para 22-23)

Contradictory Testimonies – The prosecution witnesses gave conflicting statements regarding the place where the accused were allegedly identified. Furthermore, one of the key witnesses admitted during cross-examination that he signed blank papers, raising serious doubts about the authenticity of the case. (Para 17-20)

Failure to Recover Looted Items – The accused were acquitted under Section 411 IPC, as no stolen property was recovered from them. This further weakened the prosecution’s case. (Para 14, 21)

Benefit of Doubt Granted – The court held that since the manner of arrest was doubtful, the recovery of weapons was unreliable, and the identification of the accused was questionable, the appellants should be given the benefit of doubt. Their convictions were set aside. (Para 24-25)

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 136 – Supreme Court’s discretionary power to hear appeals.
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313 – Examination of the accused by the court.
3. Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 392, 397, 411 – Robbery, use of deadly weapons, and dishonestly receiving stolen property.
4. Arms Act, 1959 – Section 25 – Possession of illegal arms.

Subjects:

Unreliable Arrest – No Test Identification Parade – Contradictory Witnesses – Acquittal – Benefit of Doubt – Recovery of Weapons – Dock Identification

Facts:

1. Nature of the Litigation
The appellants were convicted under Sections 392, 397 IPC for robbery and under Section 25 of the Arms Act for illegal possession of weapons. They were sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.

2. Who Asked the Court and for What Remedy?
The appellants, Wahid and Anshu, challenged their conviction before the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court dismissed their appeal.

3. Reason for Filing the Case
The prosecution alleged that the appellants, along with two others, boarded a mini-bus at night, robbed passengers at gunpoint, and fled. The police later arrested them based on identification by the complainant.

4. What Had Been Decided Until Now?
The Trial Court convicted the appellants based on the complainant’s identification and alleged recovery of weapons. The High Court upheld the conviction.

Issues:

a. Whether the arrest and recovery of weapons from the accused were reliable?
b. Whether the identification of the accused in court was credible in the absence of a Test Identification Parade?
c. Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?

Submissions/Arguments:

Appellants:

• The FIR did not name any accused.
• The incident took place at night, and no proper identification was done.
• No looted items were recovered from the accused.
• Witnesses contradicted themselves, casting doubt on the prosecution’s case.

State:

• Even if some witnesses did not support the prosecution, the testimony of others was sufficient for conviction.
• The accused were lawfully arrested and identified.
• Courts should not interfere when lower courts have carefully examined evidence.

Decision:

The Supreme Court held that the manner of arrest was highly doubtful, no looted items were recovered, and the identification of the accused was unreliable. The appellants were acquitted.

Ratio:

When the prosecution fails to establish a credible manner of arrest, lacks recovery of stolen property, and does not conduct a proper identification parade, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.