Meticulous Examination Needed In Cases Where FIR Was Against Unknown Persons & Accused Are Not Known To Witnesses : Supreme Court

Emphasizing the need for meticulous examination in cases involving unidentified accused, the Supreme Court today (February 4) overturned the conviction of two individuals in a case for bus robbery, citing major flaws in the police investigation and unreliable eyewitness identification.

“In cases where the FIR is lodged against unknown persons, and the persons made accused are not known to the witnesses, material collected during investigation plays an important role to determine whether there is a credible case against the accused. In such type of cases, the courts have to meticulously examine the evidence regarding (a) how the investigating agency derived clue about the involvement of the accused in the crime; (b) the manner in which the accused was arrested; and (c) the manner in which the accused was identified.”, the court observed.

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra heard the case where the Appellants being unknown to the witnesses alleged to have committed robbery in the moving bus.

The Appellants argued they were falsely implicated, asserting that their arrest, based on the unreliable testimony of a witness who claimed to have randomly spotted them at a bus depot two days after the crime, cannot be sustained.

The Appellants further argued that, as they were unknown to the witnesses prior to the alleged crime, the prosecution's failure to conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP) to ascertain if other passengers could identify them casts doubt on the prosecution's case.

The trial court acquitted the accused, whereas, on State's appeal, the High Court convicted them. Following this, the accused appealed to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Manoj Misra emphasized that in cases where the FIR is filed against unknown persons, "material collected during investigation plays an important role."

The Court said that mere assertion by the prosecution that a crime occurred is insufficient, instead it must be established who committed the crime.

The Court questioned the appellants' night-time arrest, based solely on the lead witness's testimony that he recognized them near the bus depot two days after the incident, carrying similar weapons. The Court found the timing of the arrest suspicious, noting the improbability of the lead witness, a robbery victim, being out at 10 PM in winter, purportedly on his way to the police station to deliver a mobile phone purchase receipt, when he then "spotted" the accused.

The Court also found the eyewitness identification unreliable. The robbery occurred at night, and while seven eyewitnesses were examined, only three identified the accused in court. Three other eyewitnesses explicitly stated that the accused were not the robbers, and a fourth said it was too dark to see clearly. The Court emphasized the weakness of dock identification, especially 16 months after the incident in the case of one witness, and nearly four years later for two others, without any prior Test Identification Parade (TIP).

Citing Manoj and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court observed “normally where accused persons are unknown and are not named in the FIR, if the prosecution case as regards the manner in which they were arrested is disbelieved, the Court should proceed cautiously with other evidence and objectively determine whether all other circumstances were proved beyond reasonable doubt.”

“As far as dock identification by the remaining two eye witnesses is concerned, they identified the accused persons during their deposition in court in the year 2015, that is, after nearly 4 years of the incident. PW-6, though stated that he identified the accused persons on 06.12.2011 while they were in the police lock-up, admitted that he went to the police station without being summoned. Interestingly, as per his description in the record, he is a resident of Aligarh. During cross-examination, he stated that he visited the police station on 06.12.2011 at 07:30 a.m. Considering that he is a resident of Aligarh, his statement that he visited the police station without summons on 06.12.2011 at 07:30 a.m. does not inspire our confidence. Admittedly, memory of those witnesses was not tested through a test identification parade. In such circumstances, when three eye witnesses stated that accused persons were not the ones who committed the crime and another one stated that it was too dark, therefore, he could not recognise, bearing in mind that the accused persons were not known to the eye witnesses from before, not much reliance can be placed on the dock identification.”, the court added.

Accordingly, the appeals were allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court was set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge(s) for which they were tried and convicted.

Case Title: WAHID VERSUS STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI and ANSHU VERSUS STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 154

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, AOR (Arguing counsel) Mr. Ibad Mushtaq, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Rai, Adv. Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi, AOR (Arguing counsel) Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Tarun Kumar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR