Date of the Judgment: 19 August 2020
Citation: Mohd. Anwar v. The State (N.C.T. of Delhi), Criminal Appeal No. 1551 of 2010
Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., S. Abdul Nazeer, J., Surya Kant, J.
Can a conviction for robbery be upheld when the accused claims to be a juvenile and mentally unsound at the time of the crime? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, upholding the conviction and dismissing the appeal. This case revolves around a robbery incident where the accused, Mohd. Anwar, was convicted under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The bench comprised Justices N.V. Ramana, S. Abdul Nazeer, and Surya Kant, with the judgment authored by Justice Surya Kant.
Case Background
On May 17, 2001, at around 11:30 PM, Tabban Khan (PW-1) was robbed while he stopped his motorcycle near a fishpond in Shahdara. Three individuals, including Mohd. Anwar, assaulted him with a knife and revolver, extorting approximately ₹30,000. The robbers also threatened to kill him to prevent him from reporting the crime. However, they fled upon hearing the commotion of passers-by. The complainant reported the incident to the police the following evening, which led to the registration of an FIR on May 20, 2001, at 7:45 PM.
On May 20, 2001, around 8:30 PM, the police apprehended three individuals, including the appellant, while they were suspiciously deboarding a bus. A prohibited buttondar knife was recovered from the appellant and his co-accused. They confessed to the robbery. The accused refused to participate in a Test Identification Parade (TIP) the next day. The trial involved twelve prosecution witnesses, including the victim, the Metropolitan Magistrate who sought to conduct the TIP, and ten police officers. The appellant denied the allegations, claiming the case was fabricated due to their failure to pay a bribe.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| May 17, 2001, 11:30 PM | Tabban Khan robbed near a fishpond in Shahdara. |
| May 18, 2001 | Tabban Khan reports the robbery to the police. |
| May 20, 2001, 7:45 PM | FIR registered. |
| May 20, 2001, 8:30 PM | Mohd. Anwar and his co-accused apprehended by police. |
| May 21, 2001 | Accused refuse to participate in Test Identification Parade (TIP). |
| March 2004 | Statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. |
| 27/29 April 2004 | Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma, convicts and sentences Mohd. Anwar. |
| 22 February 2010 | High Court of Delhi dismisses Mohd. Anwar’s appeal, modifying the conviction. |
| 22 July 2020 | Supreme Court tries to enquire into the mental health of the appellant. |
| 19 August 2020 | Supreme Court dismisses the appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial Court found all three accused guilty of robbery with attempt to cause grievous hurt, sentencing them to seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 397/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 392/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The High Court dismissed the charge under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, instead convicting the appellant under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with a reduced sentence of two years. Another co-accused, Mohd Aslam, was acquitted. The High Court noted no animosity or motive for false implication against the appellant and considered the delay in lodging the FIR insignificant. The High Court also rejected the arguments of juvenility and insanity, noting that the appellant was 21 at the time of recording his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in March 2004, indicating he was an adult at the time of the incident in May 2001.
Legal Framework
The case involves the following key legal provisions:
- Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery. It states, “If, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, any person voluntarily causes hurt, such person, 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: This section pertains to robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.
- Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines punishment for robbery.
- Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959: This section deals with the punishment for possessing prohibited arms.
- Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the act of a person of unsound mind.
- Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the power to examine the accused.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The prosecution failed to prove the robbery beyond a reasonable doubt.
- There were no independent witnesses to the incident.
- The complainant did not sustain any injuries.
- The complainant’s version was inconsistent regarding his prior knowledge of co-accused Mohd Aslam.
- There was an unexplained three-day delay in lodging the FIR, suggesting the proceedings were concocted.
- Mohd. Anwar was a juvenile (15 years old) at the time of the incident and was undergoing treatment for a mental disorder.
Respondent’s Arguments:
- The testimonies of the twelve witnesses were consistent and corroborated each other.
- The belated defenses of juvenility and insanity were an afterthought.
- The High Court had already taken a lenient view by reducing the sentence.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of Proof and Inconsistencies in Prosecution’s Case | No independent witnesses | Appellant |
| Absence of injuries on the complainant | Appellant | |
| Inconsistencies in the complainant’s version regarding knowledge of co-accused Mohd Aslam | Appellant | |
| Unexplained delay in lodging the FIR | Appellant | |
| Case was planted due to failure to pay a bribe | Appellant | |
| Belated Defenses of Juvenility and Insanity | Mohd. Anwar was a juvenile (15 years old) at the time of the incident | Appellant |
| Mohd. Anwar was undergoing treatment for a mental disorder | Appellant | |
| Strength of Prosecution’s Case | Consistent testimonies of twelve witnesses | Respondent |
| High Court already took a lenient view by reducing the sentence | Respondent |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the appellant was a juvenile at the time of the incident.
- Whether the appellant was of unsound mind at the time of the incident.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt | Yes | The testimonies of the witnesses were consistent and corroborated each other, establishing the crime of robbery with hurt. The complainant had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant. The refusal to participate in the TIP proceedings and the lack of any reasons on the spot, established the appellant’s guilty conscience. |
| Whether the appellant was a juvenile at the time of the incident | No | No evidence in the form of a birth certificate, school record, or medical test was provided. The statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, showed that the appellant was above 18 years around the time of the incident. |
| Whether the appellant was of unsound mind at the time of the incident | No | No deposition was made by any witness, nor did the appellant claim any such impairment during his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The conduct of running away from the spot and attempting to escape from the bus on 20.05.2001 evidenced an elevated level of mental intellect. |
Authorities
The following authorities were considered by the court:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ashwani Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 308 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | The refusal to participate in the TIP proceedings and the lack of any reasons on the spot, undoubtedly establish the appellant’s guilty conscience and ought to be given substantial weight. |
| TN Lakshmaiah v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 1 SCC 219 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | In order to successfully claim defence of mental unsoundness under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the accused must show by preponderance of probabilities that he/she suffered from a serious-enough mental disease or infirmity which would affect the individual’s ability to distinguish right from wrong. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Lack of independent witnesses, absence of injuries, inconsistencies in complainant’s version, delay in FIR | Rejected. The court found the testimonies of the witnesses to be consistent and reliable. The delay in FIR was explained, and the complainant’s testimony was credible. |
| Appellant was a juvenile at the time of the incident | Rejected. No concrete evidence was presented to support this claim. The appellant’s statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, indicated he was an adult. |
| Appellant was of unsound mind at the time of the incident | Rejected. No evidence or expert testimony was provided to substantiate this claim. The appellant’s behavior indicated a sound mind. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Ashwani Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 308*: The Supreme Court relied on this case to emphasize the importance of the accused’s refusal to participate in the TIP proceedings, considering it as an indicator of guilt.
- TN Lakshmaiah v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 1 SCC 219*: The Supreme Court cited this case to highlight that for the defense of mental unsoundness under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the accused must prove they suffered from a mental disease that affected their ability to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the crime.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the consistent and corroborative testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The court found the complainant’s testimony credible and noted the absence of any motive for false implication. The appellant’s refusal to participate in the TIP proceedings was deemed a significant factor indicating guilt. The belated defenses of juvenility and insanity were rejected due to a lack of supporting evidence and inconsistencies with the appellant’s own statements. The court also considered the High Court’s lenient approach in reducing the sentence. The court also emphasized that appellate courts should not routinely re-appreciate evidence.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Consistent and corroborative testimonies of prosecution witnesses | 30% |
| Credibility of the complainant’s testimony | 20% |
| Appellant’s refusal to participate in TIP proceedings | 25% |
| Lack of evidence for juvenility and insanity claims | 15% |
| High Court’s lenient approach in reducing the sentence | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning:
Issue: Was the prosecution case proven beyond reasonable doubt?
Consistent testimonies of witnesses & no motive to falsely implicate
Refusal to participate in TIP proceedings indicates guilt
Conclusion: Yes, prosecution proved its case
Issue: Was the appellant a juvenile at the time of the incident?
No birth certificate, school record or medical test
Statement under Section 313 CrPC shows appellant was above 18
Conclusion: No, appellant was not a juvenile
Issue: Was the appellant of unsound mind at the time of the incident?
No witness deposition or claim of impairment in Sec 313 statement
Appellant’s conduct shows elevated mental intellect
Conclusion: No, appellant was not of unsound mind
The Court considered the arguments of the appellant but found them unsubstantiated. The court noted that the trial court is best placed to appreciate the demeanour of a witness and other evidence on record. The court also noted that the plea of mental illness was a made-up story and far from genuine.
The Supreme Court quoted, “At the outset, it must be highlighted that appellate Courts ought not to routinely re-appreciate the evidence in a criminal case.” The court also stated, “Given the concurrent finding of the Courts below on key aspects of the robbery, we do not find it a fit case for such re-appraisal of evidence.” Furthermore, the court mentioned, “The reasons given by the High Court for disbelieving these defences are thus well reasoned and unimpeachable.”
Key Takeaways
- Appellate courts should not routinely re-appreciate evidence in criminal cases.
- Refusal to participate in a Test Identification Parade (TIP) can be a significant factor indicating guilt.
- Claims of juvenility or mental unsoundness must be supported by concrete evidence.
- Belated defenses can undermine the genuineness of the case.
Directions
The Supreme Court cancelled the appellant’s bail bonds and directed the respondent-State to take the appellant into custody to serve the remainder of his sentence.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that appellate courts should not routinely re-appreciate evidence in criminal cases, and claims of juvenility or mental unsoundness must be supported by concrete evidence. There is no change in the previous position of the law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of Mohd. Anwar under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The court found no merit in the appellant’s claims of juvenility and insanity, emphasizing the consistency and reliability of the prosecution’s evidence.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Categories: Robbery, Section 394, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 25, Arms Act, 1959, Evidence Law, Criminal Procedure
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the Mohd. Anwar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) case?
A: The main issue was whether the conviction for robbery could be upheld when the accused claimed to be a juvenile and mentally unsound at the time of the crime.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, dismissing the appeal and finding no merit in the claims of juvenility and mental unsoundness.
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 in committing robbery.
Q: What is the significance of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) in criminal cases?
A: A TIP is used to identify an accused person. Refusal to participate in a TIP can be considered an indicator of guilt.
Q: What kind of evidence is needed to prove juvenility or mental unsoundness in court?
A: Claims of juvenility or mental unsoundness must be supported by concrete evidence such as birth certificates, school records, medical tests, or expert testimony.
Source: Mohd. Anwar vs. State