Supreme Court acquits accused in robbery case due to doubtful evidence: Anwar vs. State of Haryana (2023)

Date of the Judgment: March 29, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 274

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J. and Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can inconsistencies in witness statements and doubts about evidence lead to the acquittal of an accused in a robbery case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, examining the reliability of evidence presented in a case involving charges of robbery and illegal possession of arms. The Court scrutinized the discrepancies in witness testimonies and the questionable recovery of a weapon, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the accused. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, with the opinion authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal.

Case Background

On April 4, 1994, Jahid (PW-4), the complainant, was returning to his village after purchasing groceries when he was accosted by three individuals near a cremation ground around 8:00 PM. The assailants demanded his belongings, and when he revealed he only had groceries, they assaulted him. The accused were armed with a drant, a knife, and a pistol. One of them forcibly took his wristwatch. As a tractor approached, Jahid cried for help. Harun Ali (PW-6) and Jain Singh (PW-5), who were on the tractor, tried to intervene. In the ensuing scuffle, Jahid and Jain Singh sustained injuries from the drant, and Harun Ali was injured by the knife. The assailants stole a purse containing ₹20 and an identity card from Harun Ali, and another purse with ₹15 from Jain Singh. Mahinder Singh, a resident of a nearby village, arrived at the scene, causing the three assailants to flee. One of them, Satpal, was apprehended but managed to escape. Satpal identified the other two as Anwar @ Bhugra (the appellant) and Bablu @ Om Prakash. The FIR was lodged based on this incident.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court, the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, convicted Anwar @ Bhugra, Satpal, and Om Prakash @ Bablu under Sections 394 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to seven years imprisonment with a fine of ₹2,000 each. Additionally, the trial court convicted Anwar @ Bhugra under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, sentencing him to three years imprisonment with a fine of ₹500. On appeal, the High Court upheld the convictions and sentences awarded by the trial court. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the following legal provisions:

• Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery. —If, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, the offender voluntarily causes hurt, such offender, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: “Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. —If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.”
• Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959: This section deals with the punishment for illegal possession of arms.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The prosecution’s story is fabricated, and no such incident occurred.
• Though the appellant was allegedly carrying a pistol, there is no evidence that it was used.
• The recovery of the pistol is doubtful, as the personal search memo mentions nothing was found on the appellant, while the recovery memo of the pistol states it was found in his pocket during the investigation.
• The recovery of the purse is also doubtful, as the FIR does not mention the appellant taking any purse.
• There are inconsistencies in the complainant’s (Jahid, PW-4) testimony.
• Jain Singh (PW-5) and Harun Ali (PW-6), who were present at the scene, did not support the prosecution’s version and were declared hostile. Jain Singh denied the recovery of any weapon in his presence and stated that he had signed blank papers for the police.

State’s Arguments:

• The prosecution’s version is supported by the witnesses.
• The fact that some witnesses were won over and declared hostile does not weaken the prosecution’s case.
• There are concurrent findings of facts by the lower courts, and no interference is required by the Supreme Court.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellant was that the prosecution’s case was demolished by the prosecution’s own documents and witnesses.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the prosecution had proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the offences under Sections 394 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any previous cases or books in its judgment. The court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with voluntarily causing hurt while committing robbery.
• Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Deals with robbery or dacoity with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.
• Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959: Deals with the punishment for illegal possession of arms.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The court considered the provisions of Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, but found that the prosecution failed to prove the necessary elements beyond reasonable doubt.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the appellant was primarily influenced by the inconsistencies and doubts in the prosecution’s case. The Court focused on the following:

• The conflicting statements regarding the recovery of the pistol, where the personal search memo stated nothing was found, while the recovery memo claimed the pistol was found in the appellant’s pocket during the investigation.
• The fact that two key witnesses, Jain Singh (PW-5) and Harun Ali (PW-6), turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s version.
• The improvement in the statement of the complainant (Jahid, PW-4) regarding the number of people on the tractor.
• The major discrepancies between the FIR and the complainant’s evidence regarding who snatched whose purse.
• The non-production of Mahinder Singh, a material witness, by the prosecution.

Fact:Law

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on factual inconsistencies and doubts in the prosecution’s case, rather than a novel interpretation of the law. The court emphasized the importance of consistent and reliable evidence in criminal cases.

The Court considered the possibility that the appellant was involved in the crime but concluded that the evidence presented was not sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court highlighted the importance of a strong and consistent prosecution case, especially in criminal matters. The court stated, “From the aforesaid material on record, the presence of the appellant at the scene of crime and recovery of pistol from him becomes highly doubtful and the guilt of the appellant having not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, conviction and sentence cannot be upheld.” The court also noted, “It is strange to note that the appellant will continue to carry the pistol in his pocket days after the incident and will be arrested along with that.” and “There was improvement in the statement of Jahid (PW-4), the complainant, which makes the case of the prosecution doubtful.”

The decision was unanimous, with both Justices Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal agreeing that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.

Key Takeaways

• Inconsistencies in witness statements and discrepancies in evidence can lead to the acquittal of an accused.
• The prosecution must present a strong and consistent case to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The recovery of evidence must be reliable and free from doubt.
• The non-production of material witnesses can weaken the prosecution’s case.

This judgment reinforces the principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and any doubts in the evidence must be resolved in favor of the accused. It highlights the importance of thorough and consistent investigation and presentation of evidence in criminal cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the judgment and order passed by the High Court and the Trial Court as regards the appellant are set aside. The bail bonds submitted by the appellant were cancelled.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any inconsistencies or doubts in the evidence can lead to an acquittal. There was no change in the previous position of law. The court reiterated the established principles of criminal jurisprudence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Anwar @ Bhugra v. State of Haryana underscores the importance of credible and consistent evidence in criminal cases. The Court acquitted the appellant due to significant doubts and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, emphasizing the principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that any benefit of doubt must go to the accused. This judgment serves as a reminder of the high standards of evidence required for conviction in criminal matters.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories: Evidence, Burden of Proof, Reasonable Doubt, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 394, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 397, Arms Act, 1959, Section 25

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Anwar @ Bhugra v. State of Haryana case?
A: The main issue was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt in a case involving charges of robbery and illegal possession of arms.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding that the prosecution’s evidence was doubtful and inconsistent.

Q: What were the key reasons for the Supreme Court’s decision?
A: The key reasons included conflicting statements about the recovery of the pistol, hostile witnesses who did not support the prosecution, inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony, and the non-production of a material witness.

Q: What does this case mean for future criminal cases?
A: This case reinforces the principle that the prosecution must present a strong and consistent case to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. It highlights the importance of reliable evidence and the need to resolve any doubts in favor of the accused.

Q: What is Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
A: Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with voluntarily causing hurt while committing robbery.

Q: What is Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
A: Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with robbery or dacoity with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.

Q: What is Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959?
A: Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 deals with the punishment for illegal possession of arms.