Not Uncommon For Police To Be Under Pressure to Quickly Resolve Case Having Implications On Public Order & Look For Soft Targets: SC

The appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 395 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra said, “The appellant had denied the factum of arrest in the manner alleged and had also produced defence witnesses, but neither the trial court nor the High Court discussed the defence evidence.”

AOR Manish Kumar Gupta represented the Appellant while AOR Apoorv Shukla represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The incident dates back to the year 1993 when one person sitting behind the driver in a Transport Bus put a country-made pistol on the temple of the driver and ordered him to stop the bus. When the bus stopped, 8 men started beating the passengers and robbed them of their belongings. A shot was also fired at one of the passengers who sustained injuries. The culprits thereafter escaped with looted articles. The driver took the bus to the Police Station where an FIR was lodged. The appellant was thereafter arrested. He was carrying a countrymade pistol, which had five cartridges, two live and three empty. He was put to the test identification parade (TIP) wherein he was identified by the bus driver and the conductor.

The Trial Court held that the factum of dacoity was duly proved and held the appellant guilty. However, the co-accused was acquitted. The appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court, though without success. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench noticed that the prosecution evidence indicated that the country-made pistol had two live cartridges and three empty cartridges. The appellant denied the factum of arrest in the manner alleged and had also produced defence witnesses, but neither the trial court nor the High Court discussed the defence evidence.The Bench was of the view that how the arrest had been effected was doubtful.

Reference was made to the dock identification by the police personnel PW-9. It was noticed that his statement was recorded on the same day the FIR was registered. The appellant was also arrested that very night within a few hours of the incident. Yet, PW-9 was not used for identifying the accused during the TIP. “ His non-participation in the TIP, seriously dents his credibility”, it said while further adding, “The dock identification by a solitary witness, that too a police personnel, failed to inspire the Court’s confidence to sustain conviction of the appellant.”

The Bench noticed that ordinarily if a person is carrying a loaded weapon, he would use the same to evade arrest unless the person is completely outnumbered. Here, the appellant was stated to have been arrested by PW5, who was single and about to attend nature’s call. Moreover, there was no injury on either side to suggest that resistance was offered at the time of the arrest. The Police Official in his deposition stated that he had seen the appellant earlier on more than one occasion. If that was so, there was all the more reason for the investigating officer to use him in the TIP. More so, when, as a police personnel, he was under the control of the prosecution.

“Such a prosecution story is too convenient to be acceptable as true. More so, when it had support from police witnesses only. Therefore, the court should have been circumspect so as to look for corroborative pieces of evidence. This we say so, because it is not uncommon for the police to be under pressure to quickly resolve a case having implications on public order and therefore, look for soft targets”, it said.

Moreover, the seizure memo was prepared about nine hours after the appellant was allegedly arrested. “Such a long delay in producing the seized articles at the police station for preparing seizure memo, in absence of cogent explanation, dents the credibility of prosecution story regarding the arrest of the appellant”, it added.

“All these circumstances, taken cumulatively, seriously dent the credibility of the prosecution case qua recovery of country made pistol from the appellant at 3 a.m. in the night of 29.09.1993”, the Bench said while allowing the appeal and acquitting the appellant-accused.

Cause Title: Vinod @ Nasmulla v. The State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 220)

Appearance:

Appellants: AOR Manish Kumar Gupta, Advocates Sangita Gupta, Sharad Prakash Pandey

Respondents: AOR Apoorv Shukla, Advocates Puneet Chahar, Prabhleen A. Shukla

Click here to read/download Judgment