Arrest Story Found Doubtful; Supreme Court Acquits Two Accused in Night Bus Robbery for Lack of Corroboration

A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra heard appeals by Wahid and Anshu challenging a Delhi High Court judgment that had affirmed their convictions for a December 2011 robbery. The appeals arose from convictions under Sections 392/397/411 IPC and Section 25(1) of the Arms Act following an incident in a Gramin Sewa mini-bus in which four passengers were robbed at knifepoint.

The Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court and trial court judgments, acquitting the appellants for the offences for which they were tried. The Court found that the prosecution had established the occurrence of robbery but had failed to prove that the appellants were the perpetrators beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasised that where accused were unknown to witnesses, the investigation and manner of arrest required careful scrutiny and corroboration. The Court noted, "These circumstances make the prosecution story relating to the manner of arrest highly improbable." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "For the reasons above, we hold that the arrest of the accused persons in the manner alleged by the prosecution is highly doubtful and unworthy of acceptance." On that basis, and given absence of recovery of looted articles or reliable identification, the convictions could not stand.

Background The prosecution case stated that on the night of December 3, 2011 four persons boarded a Gramin Sewa, threatened passengers with knives, a screw driver and a country-made pistol, and robbed them of cash and mobile phones. The FIR was lodged at the first opportunity and the incident particulars in the FIR matched witness accounts. Two days later, the prosecution said, the complainant (PW-1) spotted four men at the Nand Nagri DTC bus depot, informed police and the accused were arrested; weapons were reportedly recovered at the time of arrest. At trial Wahid and Anshu were convicted: Wahid under Sections 392/397 IPC; Anshu under Sections 392/397 IPC and Section 25(1) Arms Act. The High Court dismissed their appeals.

On appeal before the Supreme Court the appellants challenged identification, the manner of arrest and recoveries. The Court reviewed witness testimony and investigation records and found material inconsistencies as to how and where the police obtained information and effected arrest. Witness PW-1 gave varying accounts of when and where he saw the accused; police witnesses differed on whether the complainant accompanied the party from the station or was met en route. PW-1 also stated that his signature was obtained on "blank papers." Several co-passengers either denied recognizing the accused or said it was too dark to identify robbers; no test identification parade had been conducted; alleged dock identifications occurred years after the incident. There was no recovery of looted mobile phones from the accused (the trial court had acquitted on Section 411). The Court held that once the arrest story was rendered doubtful, the recoveries and subsequent identifications lost credibility and the prosecution failed to discharge its burden. The appeals were allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appellants — who were on bail — were acquitted and discharged without surrender; their bail bonds stood discharged.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 145; Criminal Appeal Nos. 201 & 202 of 2020 Case Title: Wahid v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi; Anshu v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not recorded in the judgment For the Respondent(s): Not recorded in the judgment