Wahid Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

                         AUTHOR NAME- Snehil Singh, B.A. L.L.B., Fifth Year.

           NAME OF INSTITUTION: Babu Banarasi Das University, Lucknow

FACTS:

The case presented by the prosecution states that on the night of December 3, 2011, at around 11:25 p.m., the complainant (PW-1) was traveling in a Gramin Sewa mini-bus along with four other passengers, a driver, and a conductor. As the vehicle neared Gagan Cinema, four individuals boarded the bus. Shortly after, these individuals threatened the passengers using weapons like knives, a screwdriver, and a country-made pistol. They then robbed the passengers of their mobile phones and cash before getting off the bus.

Following the incident, the driver took the victims to a nearby police unit (PCR), where they reported the crime. A formal FIR (No. 512/2011) was registered at Nand Nagri Police Station in Delhi. The case was investigated by PW-13, who claimed that, based on information from the complainant, all four accused were arrested on December 5, 2011, near the DTC Bus Depot in Nand Nagri.

As per the prosecution, the arrested individuals were found in possession of weapons: Narender alias Bhola (a non-appellant) had a knife, Anshu (one of the appellants) was carrying a country-made pistol, Arif (another non-appellant) had a button-operated knife, and Wahid (another appellant) was found with a screwdriver. Additionally, some cash was allegedly recovered from them. On December 6, 2011, the prosecution further claimed that stolen mobile phones were retrieved based on information provided by Narender and Arif.

During the trial, the defense argued that the FIR did not name any of the accused and that the incident took place in the dark, making it difficult for witnesses to identify the culprits. They also pointed out that the accused and witnesses were strangers to one another. The defense questioned how all four accused, who were unrelated, could be arrested from the same place at the same time based only on PW-1’s statement.

Another major argument raised by the defense was the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP), which would have helped verify if other passengers could recognize the accused. They highlighted that none of the stolen items were recovered from the accused. The credibility of the weapon recovery was also challenged, as PW-1 claimed he was made to sign blank papers. Furthermore, key witnesses—PW-2, PW-3, and PW-12—clearly stated that the accused were not the same individuals who committed the robbery. PW-14, another passenger, testified that the darkness prevented him from identifying the robbers. The defense also pointed out contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, arguing that these inconsistencies should have resulted in the accused being given the benefit of the doubt.

On the other hand, the State’s counsel argued that even if some witnesses did not support the prosecution’s case, the conviction could still be upheld based on the reliable testimonies of other witnesses. The State asserted that PW-1, PW-5, and PW-6 had no reason to falsely implicate the accused and that their statements were sufficient to prove guilt. The prosecution maintained that since the lower courts had already examined the evidence and found the accused guilty, there was no justification for the Supreme Court to interfere with the verdict under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

ISSUE RAISED:

1. Whether the arrest of the appellants and the recovery of weapons from them were genuine and trustworthy.
2. How credible their identification in court was, given that no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted.
3. Whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellants’ guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.

RULE OF LAW:

The case focused on key principles of criminal law, especially the prosecution’s duty to establish the accused’s guilt with strong and convincing proof. The court stressed the importance of reliable evidence, proper identification methods, and the recovery of stolen items to support the charges under Sections 392 and 397 of the IPC[i], as well as Section 25 of the Arms Act.[ii]

REASONING:

The Supreme Court identified multiple flaws and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case:

• Questionable Arrest and Recovery: The circumstances surrounding the arrest of the appellants and the seizure of weapons raised doubts. The prosecution’s claim that the accused were found together in a public area two days after the crime, carrying weapons that matched those mentioned in the FIR, seemed unlikely.
• Absence of Stolen Items: The fact that no looted property was recovered from the appellants weakened the prosecution’s argument and cast doubt on their alleged involvement in the robbery.
• Unreliable Identification: Since no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted, the court found the identification of the accused in the courtroom to be untrustworthy, as it lacked independent verification.

HELD:

These two appeals challenge a common judgment issued by the Delhi High Court on November 15, 2018, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1015 of 2017 and 1132 of 2017. The High Court upheld the verdict of the Additional Sessions Judge-04 (Shahdara), Karkardooma (KKD) Courts, Delhi, delivered on August 16, 2017, in Sessions Case No. 78 of 2014.

The case involves the appellants, Wahid and Anshu, along with two other accused, who were charged under Sections 392, 397, and 411 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, in connection with FIR No. 512 of 2011 registered at Police Station Nand Nagri, Delhi.

The Trial Court convicted Wahid under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of ₹5,000. In case of default in payment, he was to serve an additional two years of imprisonment. However, he was acquitted of the charge under Section 411 IPC.

Anshu was convicted and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC, along with a fine of ₹5,000 and a default sentence of two years. Additionally, he was convicted under Section 25(1) of the Arms Act and sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment, with a fine of ₹2,000 and a default sentence of six months.

The two other accused, Narender and Arif, were also convicted. However, since they are not parties to the present appeal and have reportedly completed their sentences, their cases are not being examined further.

Both Wahid and Anshu had individually challenged their convictions before the Delhi High Court, but their appeals were dismissed through the impugned order.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Case name- Wahid v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2020)

For Full Document click the link below- https://digiscr.sci.gov.in/admin/judgement_file/judgement_pdf/2025/volume%202/Part%20II/2025_2_363-375_1740806967.pdf

[i] The Indian Penal Code, 378, No. 45 of 1860, Act of Parliament (India).

[ii] The Arms Act, 5, No. 54 of 1959, Act of Parliament (India).