Supreme Court acquits accused in robbery case due to lack of corroborative evidence: Bijender @ Mandar vs. State of Haryana (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 8th November 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 737

Judges: N.V. Ramana, CJI., Surya Kant, J., and Hima Kohli, J.

Can a conviction for robbery be upheld when the primary witnesses turn hostile, and the case rests solely on the accused’s disclosure statement and subsequent recovery of items? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, ultimately acquitting the accused due to a lack of corroborative evidence. The judgment highlights the importance of independent verification and the limitations of relying solely on disclosure statements in criminal trials. The bench comprised Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice Hima Kohli, with the judgment authored by Justice Surya Kant.

Case Background

On April 14, 1999, at approximately 11:00 AM, Bal Kishan (the complainant) was traveling to Delhi on his motorcycle with his nephew, Sanjay, carrying Rs. 46,000 to purchase land. Near Virender Bansal’s farmhouse on Jatheri Road, they were intercepted by a vehicle. The appellant, Bijender @ Mandar, and Manjeet (co-accused), armed with country-made pistols, demanded the money. The complainant handed over his bike keys, and the accused took the bag containing the money from the motorcycle’s boot before fleeing. The complainant reported the incident to ASI Rajinder Kumar (PW-14) and an FIR was lodged.

Four accused, including the appellant, were arrested based on secret information and charged under Sections 392, 397, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act. A fifth co-accused, Vinod, was declared a proclaimed offender. The prosecution argued that the accused conspired to rob the complainant, with Mukesh and Subhash providing information, and Bijender, Manjeet, and Vinod executing the robbery. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on the disclosure statements of the accused and the subsequent recoveries.

The appellant’s disclosure statement (Ex. PD) stated that he received Rs. 10,000 as his share, of which he had spent Rs. 5,000. He led the police to his residence, where Rs. 5,000 was recovered wrapped in a red cloth (Ex. P1), along with a passbook (Ex. P2). The prosecution claimed the red cloth belonged to the complainant’s wife and the passbook to the complainant. However, during the trial, many prosecution witnesses turned hostile, including the complainant and his nephew.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted the appellant and Manjeet under Sections 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Manjeet was also convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Mukesh and Subhash were convicted under Section 120B of the IPC. The Trial Court relied on the disclosure statements and the recovery of articles, concluding that the accused failed to explain how they came into possession of the red cloth and passbook.

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld the convictions but reduced the sentence under Section 397 of the IPC to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court noted that the non-identification of the accused in court was not a material consideration when other evidence pointed towards the crime. The High Court concurred with the Trial Court that the recovery of the articles was sufficient to establish guilt.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 392, Indian Penal Code: Defines the punishment for robbery.
• Section 397, Indian Penal Code: Deals with robbery or dacoity with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.
• Section 120B, Indian Penal Code: Defines the punishment for criminal conspiracy.

These sections are part of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which provides the legal framework for criminal offenses in India. The sections address the act of robbery, the use of deadly weapons during robbery, and the act of forming a criminal conspiracy to commit an offense.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that his conviction was solely based on the disclosure statement and there was no other evidence to support the conviction under Sections 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The appellant contended that the co-accused, Mukesh and Suresh, had already been acquitted by the Supreme Court in previous appeals, finding a lack of evidence to sustain their conviction under Section 120B of the IPC.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The State argued that the Supreme Court should not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts.
• The State contended that the appellant’s disclosure statement led to the recovery of Rs. 5,000, a red cloth, and an Indian Bank passbook, which was sufficient to convict him.
• The State rebutted that the acquittal of the co-accused was only regarding conspiracy, and it did not impact the appellant’s conviction for actually committing the robbery.

The appellant argued that the lack of corroborative evidence and the acquittal of the co-accused on conspiracy charges undermined the conviction. The State argued that the recovery of items based on the appellant’s disclosure was sufficient proof, and the concurrent findings of fact by lower courts should not be disturbed. The State also distinguished the case from that of the co-accused, asserting that their acquittal on conspiracy charges did not impact the appellant’s direct involvement in the robbery.

The arguments highlight the tension between the reliance on disclosure statements and the need for corroborative evidence in criminal cases. The appellant’s argument focused on the lack of independent evidence and the implications of the co-accused’s acquittal, while the respondent emphasized the recovery of items and the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the conviction of the Appellant, based solely on the disclosure statement (Ex. PD) and the recovery memo (Ex. PD/2), in the absence of any corroborative evidence, can be sustained?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Vijay Thakur vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2014) 14 SCC 609: This case was cited to emphasize that a conviction can be based on a disclosure statement and resultant recovery, but the recovery should be unimpeachable and not shrouded with doubt.
• Tulsiram Kanu vs. The State, AIR 1954 SC 13: This case was cited to highlight the factors that aid in gauging the intrinsic evidentiary value and credibility of the recovery.
• Pancho vs. State of Haryana, (2011) 10 SCC 165: This case was cited to highlight the factors that aid in gauging the intrinsic evidentiary value and credibility of the recovery.
• State of Rajasthan vs. Talevar & Anr, (2011) 11 SCC 666: This case was cited to highlight the factors that aid in gauging the intrinsic evidentiary value and credibility of the recovery.
• Bharama Parasram Kudhachkar vs. State of Karnataka, (2014) 14 SCC 431: This case was cited to highlight the factors that aid in gauging the intrinsic evidentiary value and credibility of the recovery.

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 392, Indian Penal Code: The court considered this section to understand the definition and punishment for robbery.
• Section 397, Indian Penal Code: The court considered this section to understand the definition and punishment for robbery with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.
• Section 120B, Indian Penal Code: The court considered this section to understand the definition and punishment for criminal conspiracy.

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and arguments presented by both sides. The Court noted that the prosecution’s case heavily relied on the disclosure statement of the appellant and the subsequent recovery of items. However, the Court found significant issues with the prosecution’s case, including the fact that the primary witnesses, including the complainant, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s narrative.

The Court also assessed how the authorities were viewed:

• Vijay Thakur vs. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2014) 14 SCC 609]:* The Court reiterated the principle that while a conviction can be based on a disclosure statement and resultant recovery, the recovery should be unimpeachable and not shrouded with doubt. The court found that the recovery in the present case did not meet this threshold.
• Tulsiram Kanu vs. The State [AIR 1954 SC 13], Pancho vs. State of Haryana [(2011) 10 SCC 165], State of Rajasthan vs. Talevar & Anr [(2011) 11 SCC 666], Bharama Parasram Kudhachkar vs. State of Karnataka [(2014) 14 SCC 431]:* The Court applied the principles from these cases to assess the credibility of the recovery in the present case. The court noted that the recovered items were common place, the recovery was made after a significant delay, and the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution’s version.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of credible evidence and the failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized the following points:

• Lack of Corroborative Evidence: The primary witnesses turned hostile, and there was no independent evidence to support the prosecution’s case.
• Doubtful Recovery: The recovery of items was not considered unimpeachable due to the lack of independent witnesses, the common nature of the recovered items, and the time gap between the incident and the recovery.
• Shifting of Burden: The lower courts had erroneously shifted the burden of proof onto the appellant to explain his possession of the recovered items, rather than the prosecution proving his guilt.
• Precedent: The Court relied on previous cases to highlight that a conviction cannot be based solely on a disclosure statement without corroborative evidence.

The Court’s reasoning was a blend of factual analysis and legal principles. The factual analysis focused on the lack of credible evidence and the circumstances surrounding the recovery, while the legal analysis emphasized the need for corroborative evidence and the proper allocation of the burden of proof.

The Court considered and rejected the argument that the increase in heinous crimes should lead to a relaxation of the standards of proof. The Court emphasized that the burden to prove guilt beyond doubt remains on the prosecution and does not shift to the accused.

The Supreme Court stated:

“It may not be wise or prudent to convict a person only because there is rampant increase in heinous crimes and victims are oftenly reluctant to speak truth due to fear or other extraneous reasons.”

“The burden to prove the guilt beyond doubt does not shift on the suspect save where the law casts duty on the accused to prove his/her innocence.”

“It is the bounden duty of the prosecution in cases where material witnesses are likely to be slippery, either to get their statements recorded at the earliest under Section 164 Cr.P.C. or collect such other cogent evidence that its case does not entirely depend upon oral testimonies.”

Key Takeaways

• Corroboration is Essential: Convictions cannot be solely based on disclosure statements and recoveries; corroborative evidence is necessary.
• Unimpeachable Recovery: Recoveries must be credible and free from doubt, with independent witnesses and a clear link to the crime.
• Burden of Proof: The burden of proof always lies on the prosecution and does not shift to the accused.
• Importance of Witness Statements: In cases where witnesses may turn hostile, the prosecution should record statements early or gather alternative evidence.

This judgment reinforces the importance of due process and the need for a robust evidentiary basis for convictions. It emphasizes the limitations of relying solely on disclosure statements and the need for independent verification. The judgment is likely to have a significant impact on future criminal cases, particularly those involving recoveries based on disclosure statements.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions other than setting aside the judgments of the lower courts and acquitting the appellant.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion on any specific amendments in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the basis of a disclosure statement and the subsequent recovery of items, without any other corroborative evidence. This judgment reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and the burden of proof does not shift to the accused. This case clarifies the evidentiary value of disclosure statements and recoveries, emphasizing the need for independent verification and credible evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, Bijender @ Mandar, setting aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court. The Court held that the conviction was not sustainable as it was based solely on the appellant’s disclosure statement and the subsequent recovery of items, without any corroborative evidence. The judgment underscores the importance of corroborative evidence, the need for unimpeachable recoveries, and the principle that the burden of proof always lies on the prosecution. This case serves as a reminder of the need for a robust evidentiary basis for convictions and the limitations of relying solely on disclosure statements in criminal trials.