Date of the Judgment: February 14, 2025
Citation: (2025) INSC 220
Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. and Manoj Misra, J.
In a recent criminal appeal, the Supreme Court of India addressed the critical issue of evidentiary standards in dacoity cases. The central question was whether the conviction of an accused could be sustained based on weak and uncorroborated evidence. Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra, in a unanimous decision, overturned the conviction, emphasizing the importance of reliable evidence and the benefit of the doubt in criminal trials. This judgment underscores the necessity for thorough investigation and credible evidence to secure a conviction, especially in cases involving serious charges like dacoity.
Case Background
On the night of September 28, 1993, a bus en route to Raipur was robbed by a group of armed men. According to the prosecution, one person put a country-made pistol to the driver’s head, forcing the bus to stop. Several individuals then started beating and robbing the passengers. A shot was fired, injuring one of the passengers, and the culprits fled with the stolen items. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged at the Ambikapur Police Station at 12:20 a.m. on September 29, 1993.
The police initiated a search, and on September 29, 1993, Khemraj Singh (PW-5) arrested the appellant, Vinod @ Nasmulla, allegedly carrying a country-made pistol with five cartridges. On September 30, 1993, a test identification parade (TIP) was conducted, where the bus driver and Khalasi Ainul Khan identified the appellant. However, the conductor, Kamal Singh, failed to identify him. Based on a confessional statement, Mohd. Kalam Ansari was also arrested and tried alongside the appellant.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| September 28, 1993 | Dacoity occurred on a bus en route to Raipur around 11:30 p.m. |
| September 29, 1993 (12:20 a.m.) | First Information Report (FIR) lodged at Ambikapur Police Station. |
| September 29, 1993 (3:00 a.m.) | Appellant Vinod @ Nasmulla arrested by Khemraj Singh (PW-5), allegedly carrying a country-made pistol. |
| September 30, 1993 | Test Identification Parade (TIP) conducted; bus driver and Khalasi identified the appellant. |
| October 26, 1999 | Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, convicted the appellant. |
| January 3, 2018 | High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, dismissed the appellant’s appeal. |
| February 14, 2025 | Supreme Court of India overturned the conviction in Criminal Appeal No. 1931 of 2019. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, sentencing him to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine. Mohd. Kalam Ansari, the co-accused, was acquitted. Aggrieved by the judgment, the appellant appealed to the High Court of Chhattisgarh, which dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court’s decision. Subsequently, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Framework
- Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the offense of dacoity, which involves five or more persons jointly committing or attempting to commit robbery.
- Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with robbery or dacoity with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. It prescribes a minimum sentence of seven years if the offender uses a deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt during the commission of the offense.
- Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959: This section prescribes the punishment for possessing, manufacturing, selling, or transferring prohibited arms.
Arguments
Appellant’s Submissions:
- ✓ The prosecution withheld crucial evidence by not examining the bus driver, conductor, and Khalasi, who participated in the TIP.
- ✓ The credibility of PW-9, a police personnel, is doubtful due to the lack of movement papers and non-participation in the TIP.
- ✓ No stolen articles were recovered from the appellant.
- ✓ The recovered country-made pistol was not linked to the crime scene through forensic evidence.
- ✓ The circumstances of the appellant’s arrest by PW-5 are suspicious.
State’s Submissions:
- ✓ The factum of dacoity is proven beyond doubt.
- ✓ PW-9 identified the appellant as the one who pointed the gun at the driver.
- ✓ The TIP was conducted promptly, and the appellant was identified.
- ✓ PW-5 proved the arrest of the appellant with a country-made pistol.
- ✓ Forensic examination confirmed the pistol was in working condition with live cartridges.
| Main Submission | Appellant’s Sub-Submissions | State’s Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Withholding of Evidence | ✓ Best evidence (driver, conductor, khalasi) not presented. | |
| Reliability of Witness (PW-9) | ✓ Doubtful presence in bus, no movement papers, non-participation in TIP. | ✓ Identified appellant, no reason to falsely implicate. |
| Recovery of Stolen Articles | ✓ No stolen articles recovered from appellant. | |
| Forensic Evidence | ✓ No link between recovered pistol and crime scene. | ✓ Pistol in working condition with live cartridges. |
| Manner of Arrest | ✓ Suspicious circumstances of arrest by PW-5. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the dock identification by PW-9 is reliable.
- Whether the manner in which the arrest was effected is doubtful.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Treatment | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Reliability of Dock Identification by PW-9 | Not Reliable | PW-9’s presence in the bus was doubtful, he did not participate in the TIP, and he claimed to have seen the appellant before. The best evidence (driver, conductor, cleaner) was withheld. |
| Doubtful Manner of Arrest | Doubtful | The manner of arrest was suspicious, with no corroborative evidence. The delay in producing the seized articles and discrepancies in the description of the weapon further dented the prosecution’s case. |
Authorities
The court considered the following authorities:
- Section 9 of the Evidence Act, 1872: Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts.
- Umesh Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2021) 17 SCC 616: Evidentiary value of test identification parade.
- Iqbal and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 623: Purpose of holding a test identification parade.
- Hari Nath and Another v. State of U.P., (1988) 1 SCC 14: Evidence of identification corroborates oral testimony in court.
- Rameshwar Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1971) 2 SCC 715: Evidentiary value of the TIP.
| Authority | How Considered |
|---|---|
| Section 9 of the Evidence Act, 1872 | Explained the relevance of facts necessary to establish identity. |
| Umesh Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2021) 17 SCC 616 (Supreme Court of India) | Cited to emphasize that a TIP is not substantive evidence but corroborative. |
| Iqbal and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 623 (Supreme Court of India) | Cited to explain the purpose of a TIP in ensuring the investigation is proceeding correctly. |
| Hari Nath and Another v. State of U.P., (1988) 1 SCC 14 (Supreme Court of India) | Cited to highlight that identification evidence corroborates oral testimony in court. |
| Rameshwar Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1971) 2 SCC 715 (Supreme Court of India) | Cited to summarize the evidentiary value of a TIP and its role in corroborating or contradicting witness statements. |
Judgment
| Submission | Treatment by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the prosecution withheld best evidence | Accepted. The court noted the failure to examine key witnesses like the bus driver, conductor, and cleaner. |
| Appellant’s submission regarding the doubtful credibility of PW-9 | Accepted. The court found PW-9’s presence in the bus and subsequent identification unreliable. |
| Appellant’s submission that no stolen articles were recovered | Accepted. The court highlighted the absence of any recovery of looted articles from the appellant. |
| Appellant’s submission that the recovered pistol was not linked to the crime | Accepted. The court noted the lack of forensic evidence linking the pistol to the crime. |
| Appellant’s submission that the manner of arrest was doubtful | Accepted. The court found the circumstances of the arrest suspicious and lacking corroboration. |
| State’s submission that the factum of dacoity was proven | Acknowledged but insufficient to sustain conviction due to weak evidence against the appellant. |
| State’s submission that PW-9 identified the appellant | Rejected as unreliable due to the reasons stated above. |
| State’s submission that the TIP was properly conducted | Rejected as the witnesses who participated in the TIP were not examined during the trial. |
| State’s submission that PW-5 proved the arrest with a pistol | Rejected due to the doubtful manner of arrest and discrepancies in the evidence. |
| State’s submission that forensic examination confirmed the pistol’s condition | Acknowledged but insufficient to overcome the other deficiencies in the prosecution’s case. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court:
- Section 9 of the Evidence Act, 1872: The court acknowledged the relevance of facts necessary to establish identity but found the identification process flawed.
- Umesh Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2021) 17 SCC 616: The court reiterated that a TIP is not substantive evidence but merely corroborative, and in this case, it lacked evidentiary value.
- Iqbal and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 623: The court acknowledged the purpose of a TIP but found that the irregularities in its conduct undermined its reliability.
- Hari Nath and Another v. State of U.P., (1988) 1 SCC 14: The court emphasized that identification evidence must corroborate oral testimony, which was lacking in this case.
- Rameshwar Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1971) 2 SCC 715: The court summarized the evidentiary value of a TIP but found that the TIP in this case did not meet the required standards.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the conviction was primarily influenced by the lack of reliable evidence and the numerous doubts surrounding the prosecution’s case. The court emphasized the following points:
- ✓ The withholding of key witnesses, such as the bus driver, conductor, and cleaner, who participated in the TIP, raised serious questions about the prosecution’s case.
- ✓ The unreliability of PW-9’s testimony, due to his doubtful presence in the bus and failure to participate in the TIP, further weakened the prosecution’s case.
- ✓ The absence of any recovered stolen articles from the appellant cast doubt on his involvement in the dacoity.
- ✓ The lack of forensic evidence linking the recovered pistol to the crime scene made it difficult to establish the appellant’s guilt.
- ✓ The suspicious circumstances surrounding the appellant’s arrest, with no corroborative evidence, made the prosecution’s story less credible.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Withholding of Key Witnesses | 30% |
| Unreliability of PW-9’s Testimony | 25% |
| Absence of Recovered Stolen Articles | 15% |
| Lack of Forensic Evidence | 15% |
| Suspicious Circumstances of Arrest | 15% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (Factual Aspects of the Case) | 60% |
| Law (Legal Considerations) | 40% |
The court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the factual aspects of the case, particularly the inconsistencies and lack of corroboration in the evidence presented by the prosecution. While legal principles were considered, the court’s decision ultimately hinged on the failure of the prosecution to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the available facts.
Logical Reasoning:
For the issue of whether the dock identification by PW-9 is reliable:
↓
↓
↓
↓
For the issue of whether the manner in which the arrest was effected is doubtful:
↓
↓
↓
↓
The Supreme Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them due to the lack of credible evidence. The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, the benefit of the doubt was given to the accused.
The decision was based on the following reasons:
- ✓ The prosecution withheld key witnesses.
- ✓ The dock identification by PW-9 was unreliable.
- ✓ No stolen articles were recovered from the appellant.
- ✓ The recovered pistol was not linked to the crime.
- ✓ The manner of arrest was doubtful.
The court quoted:
“The identification during police investigation ……. is not substantive evidence in law and it can only be used for corroborating or contradicting evidence of the witness concerned as given in Court.”
“Thus, if the witness who identified a person or a n article in the TIP is not examined during trial, the TIP report which may be useful to corroborate or contradict him would lose its evidentiary value for the purposes of identification.”
“Ordinarily, if a person is carrying a loaded weapon, he would use the same to evade arrest unless the person is completely outnumbered.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ The judgment reinforces the importance of credible and corroborative evidence in criminal trials.
- ✓ It highlights the need for thorough investigation and examination of all key witnesses.
- ✓ It underscores the principle that the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused when the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that a conviction cannot be sustained based on weak and uncorroborated evidence. The judgment reinforces the existing legal principles regarding the evidentiary value of TIPs and the importance of examining key witnesses. It does not introduce any new legal principles but reaffirms the high standards of proof required in criminal trials.
Conclusion
In Vinod @ Nasmulla vs. State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court overturned the appellant’s conviction for dacoity due to the lack of reliable and corroborative evidence. The court emphasized the importance of examining key witnesses, the evidentiary value of TIPs, and the need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This judgment serves as a reminder of the high standards of proof required in criminal trials and the importance of protecting the rights of the accused.