A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

In Wahid v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Criminal Appeal Nos. 201–202 of 2020, decided on 4 February 2025 by a two-judge Bench (Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Manoj Misra, JJ.), the Supreme Court examined whether convictions in a night-time robbery of passengers in a Gramin Sewa could stand when the FIR originally named unknown persons, the accused were not known to witnesses before the incident, no test identification parade was held, and the circumstances of arrest and recovery raised serious doubts. The Court accepted the prosecution’s evidence that a robbery had occurred, but held that proof of the fact of robbery was not enough to convict the appellants in absence of reliable linking material.

The judgment carefully scrutinised:
(i) how the investigating agency obtained the clue leading to the accused,

(ii) the manner of arrest, and

(iii) modes of identification used by witnesses.

Discrepancies in police testimony about where information was received, the improbability of four unrelated men being found together near a police station late at night with weapons matching descriptions in the FIR, the absence of diary entries, delayed in-court identifications (after months/years) and non-recovery of looted property led the Court to disbelieve the prosecution’s account of arrest and recovery. Applying the principle that in FIRs against unknown persons material collected during investigation assumes enhanced importance, and relying on the test of probability and corroboration, the Court set aside convictions and acquitted the appellants.

Keywords: FIR against unknown persons; dock identification; test identification parade; recovery/discovery; benefit of doubt; manner of arrest; corroboration.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case arises from FIR No. 512/2011 (PS Nand Nagri) lodged after a night robbery on 3 December 2011 in which passengers of a Gramin Sewa mini-bus were allegedly threatened with a knife, screw driver and a country-made pistol and robbed of mobile phones and cash. The FIR initially described the culprits as unknown persons. Investigation purportedly led to the arrest of four men on 5 December 2011 near the Nand Nagri DTC bus depot; weapons allegedly matching the FIR description were recovered at that time and two looted mobiles were later recovered at the instance of two accused.

Two appellants (Wahid and Anshu) were convicted by the Trial Court under ss. 392/397 IPC (both) and s.25(1) Arms Act (Anshu), and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment; their appeals to the Delhi High Court were dismissed. Before the Supreme Court the central legal frame was narrow but critical: where an FIR is against unknown persons and the accused are strangers to the eyewitnesses, can conviction rest upon post-incident identification and arrests without contemporaneous, reliable investigative records (diary entries/test parade) and where recovery and identification are otherwise tainted by timing, contradictions and delay?

The Court approached the matter through an evidentiary prism not merely whether the robbery occurred (which it accepted) but whether the prosecution had borne the affirmative burden of proving that these specific accused committed it, examining the credibility and probability of the police story, the documentary trail, the timing and method of identification, and the presence or absence of corroborative recovery of looted articles. The judgment situates itself in precedents emphasising heightened scrutiny in cases where accused were unknown at the FIR stage and stresses that recovery and propriety of arrest/identification are often determinative of the prosecution’s reliability.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On the night of 3.12.2011, at about 11:25 p.m., four persons boarded a Gramin Sewa near Gagan Cinema and, by threatening with a knife, screw driver and a country-made pistol, robbed passengers including the complainant (PW-1) of mobiles and cash. The victims went to the police and FIR No. 512/2011 was lodged the same night. Investigation (by PW-13) allegedly traced the culprits to the DTC Bus Depot, Nand Nagri and, on 5.12.2011, the police arrested four young men Narender alias Bhola, Anshu, Arif and Wahid recovering a knife, button-operated knife, country-made pistol and a screw driver respectively.

Two looted mobiles were purportedly recovered on 6.12.2011 at the instance of Narender and Arif; the Trial Court convicted Wahid and Anshu under s.392 read with s.397 IPC (both) and Anshu additionally under s.25(1) Arms Act. Several eyewitnesses (driver, conductor and passengers) were examined: only three witnesses (PW-1, PW-5, PW-6) ultimately identified the accused in court but these identifications occurred after long delays (PW-1’s statement recorded in court after 16 months; two others made dock identifications after ~4 years). Other co-travelers (including the driver) denied that the accused were the robbers or said it was too dark to recognise.

Critical police records such as diary entries about receipt of information prior to the arrest were absent; arrest memoranda showed the arrests were effected after 10 p.m. on a winter night. During cross-examination PW-1 stated he had signed seizure papers which were blank when signed and gave inconsistent accounts about when and where he met police regarding the accused. The appellants’ defense in s.313 CrPC statements was that they were picked up from home and falsely implicated by police. The High Court affirmed conviction; the Supreme Court re-examined the cumulative probabilities and ruled in favour of acquittal.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether proof of the occurrence of a robbery (FIR) is sufficient to convict accused who were not named in the FIR and unknown to eyewitnesses.
ii. Whether the prosecution’s account of how police derived the clue, how the accused were arrested and how identification took place is reliable and can sustain conviction.
iii. Whether delayed dock identification and absence of a test identification parade permit reliance on in-court identifications.
iv. What evidentiary weight should attach to recoveries alleged to have been made at arrest when manner of arrest is disputed and seizure paperwork is questionable.
v. Whether benefit of doubt must be given where there is no corroborative recovery of looted articles linking accused to crime.

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellants submitted that the FIR named unknown persons and the accused were complete strangers to the eyewitnesses; there was no test identification parade; the account of arrest was improbable four unrelated men found together near a bus depot late at night beside a police station and police records (diary entries) did not support the prosecution’s timeline. PW-1’s statement was internally contradictory and he admitted signing blank papers; several co-travelers contradicted identification. No looted property was found on the appellants and acquittal on s.411 IPC confirmed absence of recovery. The appellants asserted they were picked up from home and falsely implicated by police.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the State submitted that though some witnesses did not support the prosecution, credible testimony of PW-1, PW-5 and PW-6 sufficed for conviction; recoveries from other accused and subsequent recoveries of mobiles supported the investigative chain; courts below had properly appreciated evidence and were justified in convicting on the cumulative testimonies of reliable witnesses.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

i. Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 392, 397, 411 (robbery, dacoity/robbery with deadly weapon, receiving stolen property).
ii. Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25(1) (possession of arms without licence).
iii. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — provisions governing arrest, recording of investigation, seizure memos, and accused examination under s. 313.
iv. Evidentiary principles on identification evidence, corroboration and benefit of doubt as developed in jurisprudence (see reliance on Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353).

I) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court accepted that a robbery unquestionably occurred on 3.12.2011 as narrated in the FIR and supported by passenger testimony. However, conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused before the Court were the robbers.

The Court emphasised the tripartite scrutiny necessary when FIRs are against unknown persons:

(a) the provenance of the investigative clue leading to accused,

(b) the precise manner of arrest, and

(c) the process of identification.

The prosecution’s narrative that PW-1 spotted the four men near the bus depot on 5.12.2011 and that police immediately arrested them and recovered weapons matching the FIR was examined against contemporaneous records and witness statements. Material contradictions emerged: PW-10 (HC Mursaleen) said the police party met PW-1 at the red light after leaving the station; PW-13 (IO) and PW-1 stated the police left the station with PW-1.

No diary entry or station record corroborated the latter version. Arrest memoranda showed arrests after 10 p.m., a late hour inconsistent with PW-1’s alleged trip to deliver a receipt. PW-1 gave contradictory time/place accounts and admitted signing blank paperwork. The Court treated these improbabilities seriously: four unrelated suspects being together late at night near a police station with weapons corresponding to the FIR is possible but improbable without stronger corroboration.

The Court further analysed identification evidence: only three of seven eyewitnesses identified accused in court; three important witnesses (including driver and conductor) said the accused were not the robbers or that it was too dark to identify. No test identification parade was held; PW-1’s in-court statement was recorded after 16 months and other identifications occurred after roughly 4 years. The Court applied the probability and corroboration tests and found dock identifications and remote memory unreliable in absence of independent corroboration such as recovery of looted articles from the accused.

Since recovery of looted items was absent against the appellants (they were acquitted under s.411 at trial), the cumulative evidence did not eliminate reasonable doubt. The High Court’s and Trial Court’s acceptance of the prosecution account was therefore unsafe. On this analysis the Court allowed the appeals and acquitted the appellants; their bail bonds were discharged.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The controlling ratio is that when an FIR is lodged against unknown persons, conviction of accused unknown to witnesses requires reliable investigative trail and corroboration; courts must meticulously test:

(i) how investigators obtained the clue linking the accused,

(ii) the manner and record of arrest (including diary entries and contemporaneous seizure memos), and

(iii) the method and timing of identification (test parade vs dock identification).

Where these elements are materially inconsistent, identification is delayed, and no recovery of looted property links the accused to the crime, the benefit of reasonable doubt must follow. The Court reaffirmed that proof of the incident itself does not substitute proof that the specific accused committed it, and that improbabilities in the prosecution’s narrative (contradictory police testimony, late hour arrests, blank paperwork, delayed identification) can and should negate confidence in conviction.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court observed, obiter, that weapons such as screw drivers or knives are not so unique that their recovery, without proper chain and reliable arrest narrative, can be treated as strong corroboration; such items can be easily procured. The Court also emphasised policing best practices: where complainant provides information leading to arrest, police should record the information in station diaries before proceeding; test identification parades are the preferred mode to safeguard against mistaken identification, particularly in night incidents involving strangers. The Court underlined judicial obligations to assess evidence on the anvil of probability and not to mechanically accept prosecution versions in absence of corroboration.

c. GUIDELINES

i. In FIRs naming unknown persons, courts must scrutinise the investigative provenance: entries in station diaries, timing and content of FIR, seizure and arrest memos.
ii. Arrest memoranda should disclose exact time/place; police must ensure contemporaneous diary entries where complainant provides information at station.
iii. Test identification parades should be conducted wherever feasible, and records preserved to test memory and prevent collusion; absence of a parade weakens dock identification.
iv. Delayed in-court identification (months/years later) must be treated with caution, especially for night incidents and where witnesses were strangers to accused.
v. Recovery of looted property at the accused’s instance materially strengthens prosecution; absence of such recovery requires the prosecution to produce other strong corroborative links.
vi. Courts should apply the tests of probability and common sense; improbable chains of events (e.g., four unrelated suspects found together near a police station late at night) demand careful inquiry before convicting.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Wahid is a methodical application of evidentiary safeguards in criminal prosecutions arising from FIRs against unknown persons. It reinforces an evidentiary hierarchy: the fact of crime is necessary but not sufficient; the prosecution must demonstrate a credible, contemporaneous investigative chain linking specific accused to the offence. The decision is salutary for protecting the accused against convictions founded on weak identification and doubtful recoveries, and for reminding police to maintain contemporaneous records (diaries, seizure memos, test parades) that render post-hoc narratives credible.

For trial courts and courts of appeal the judgment underscores their duty to evaluate evidence on the principles of probability and corroboration rather than rote deference to police versions. Practically, the ruling will prompt investigators to more rigorously document information flows and identification procedures, and it arms defence practitioners with a robust template to challenge identifications made long after incidents. The judgment also balances victims’ rights (robbery was duly recognised) with accused persons’ right not to be convicted on speculative links. Overall, Wahid reiterates that in criminal law, the presumption of innocence and requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt are not rhetorical; they are operationalised through disciplined evidentiary scrutiny.

K) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

1. Wahid v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2020, Judgment dated 4 Feb. 2025, [2025] 2 S.C.R. 363 : 2025 INSC 145.

2. Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353; referred in judgment for principles on identification and corroboration.

b) Important Statutes Referred

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (ss. 392, 397, 411).

2. Arms Act, 1959 (s. 25(1)).

3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (provisions on arrest, recording, s. 313 CrPC).