‘You can’t hold ghost responsible for offences’: Why Delhi High Court acquitted man in 25-year-old robbery case

Background

• The case stemmed from a robbery on June 28, 2000 after the complainant and another person were allegedly robbed in a parking area.
• The police arrested the appellant under Section 25 (punishment for offences) of the Arms Act and a disclosure statement led to the recovery of a briefcase which was the subject matter of the case of robbery.
• The appellant refused to undergo Test Identification Parade (TIP) on the ground that he was shown to the complainant and that his photographs were taken too.
• He was held guilty of the charges framed under Section 394 (voluntarily causing hurt in committing or attempting to commit robbery)/34 (common intention) and Section 397 (robbery or dacoity) IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 7 years.
• Feeling aggrieved by this order, the appellant approached the high court.

Court’s findings

• The appellant has questioned the judgment primarily on two counts that there is no evidence to show that it was he who committed the crime or the alleged recovery of the briefcase was actually the briefcase of the complainant and that it was recovered from the possession of the appellant.
• The TIP is not a substantive piece of evidence rather a tool in the investigation process.
• It is usually relied upon and used by the courts as a piece of corroborative evidence. In any case, it cannot be substituted for substantive evidence which remains to be the statement made by the witness before the court or in the court, which includes identifying the assailant as well.
• In the instant case, no such circumstance is available which may have given the victim sufficient opportunity to observe the assailant so as to have an imprint on his mind about the assailant’s identity.
• Things happened in a whiff of moment leaving practically no scope for the victim to observe the facial or physical features of the assailants as has been deposed by the prosecution witness, that he could not see the assailants at all.
• It is only the victim who has stated something about the identity of the assailants. However the circumstances reflect that he too was not in a position to clearly ascertain the identity and to top it all, even he deposed that he had “vision issues” and therefore there seems to be practically no possibility that he had noticed the assailants so as to identify them.
• It was dark there, which further made it difficult to note the features relevant to identify an individual. In such a scenario, it would be very unsafe to record a finding against the appellant, especially when there is no corroborative evidence.
• There is no independent witness to the recovery of the briefcase from appellant’s possession.
• In view of the foregoing discussion, and considering the entire gamut of facts and circumstances, it is apparent that it would be unsafe to tie the incident of the robbery with the appellant, especially that the appellant has not been identified in a clear and cogent manner, the recovery is doubtful, there is a mix up in the recording of the FIR giving scope for manipulation
• It appears that the case of the prosecution against the accused is not credible enough. As such it would not be appropriate and safe to hold him guilty of robbery.