A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment in Mohd. Anwar v. State (NCT of Delhi) addresses critical issues relating to the evidentiary value of witness testimony, refusal to participate in Test Identification Parade, and belated claims of juvenility and mental unsoundness under criminal law. The Supreme Court examined whether such defences, raised for the first time at the appellate stage, could undermine concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court. The Court reaffirmed that robbery with hurt under Section 394 IPC stands established when ocular testimony is consistent, credible, and corroborated by surrounding circumstances. It further clarified that refusal to join TIP without justification reflects guilty conscience and constitutes an incriminating circumstance. The judgment underscores that defences under Section 84 IPC and claims of juvenility must be substantiated by cogent documentary and medical evidence and raised at the earliest stage of trial. Mere production of photocopies or affidavits without expert corroboration does not satisfy the burden of proof even on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. The Court also reiterated the limited scope of appellate interference with concurrent factual findings and emphasized that procedural leniency cannot override substantive justice. The dismissal of the appeal reinforces doctrinal clarity on criminal responsibility, evidentiary thresholds, and the sanctity of trial-stage adjudication.

Keywords: Robbery with hurt, Test Identification Parade, Section 84 IPC, juvenility, concurrent findings

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The judgment arises from a criminal appeal challenging concurrent findings of guilt for the offence of robbery with hurt. The case traversed through the Trial Court and the High Court before reaching the Supreme Court, where the appellant sought to introduce new defences relating to juvenility and mental unsoundness. The background of the case reflects a common pattern in criminal litigation where belated defences are employed as a last resort to avoid the consequences of conviction. The Trial Court had initially convicted the accused under Sections 397/34 and 392/34 IPC along with Section 25 of the Arms Act, imposing substantial sentences. The High Court, while extending partial relief by altering the conviction to Section 394 IPC and reducing the sentence, affirmed the core finding of guilt.

The Supreme Court was called upon to examine whether the High Court erred in upholding the conviction despite alleged infirmities such as delay in FIR, absence of independent witnesses, and inconsistencies in testimony. The appellant further attempted to invoke Section 84 IPC by claiming mental disorder and sought protection under juvenile jurisprudence by asserting minority at the time of the offence. The background thus situates the judgment within broader questions of criminal accountability, procedural fairness, and the evidentiary standards governing exculpatory defences. The Court’s analysis demonstrates restraint in appellate review and reinforces the primacy of trial-stage adjudication in criminal cases.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The prosecution case originates from an incident dated 17.05.2001, when the complainant Tabban Khan (PW-1) was returning home on his motorcycle late at night near Shahdara. Upon stopping near a fishpond, he was accosted by three persons including the appellant. The assailants were armed with a knife and a revolver and subjected the complainant to physical assault. Under threat of further violence, the complainant was compelled to hand over approximately Rs. 30,000 in cash. The assailants allegedly contemplated killing him to prevent reporting, but fled upon hearing passers-by.

The complainant reported the incident to the police the following evening. After preliminary inquiry, an FIR was formally registered on 20.05.2001. On the same day, police officials apprehended three suspects during routine bus checking. A prohibited knife was recovered from the appellant, and all three allegedly confessed to the robbery. When produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate for Test Identification Parade, they refused to participate.

During trial, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses including the complainant, police officials, and the Magistrate concerned with TIP proceedings. Documentary evidence such as recovery memos, sketches, and site plans were exhibited. The accused denied all allegations and claimed false implication due to refusal to pay bribe. No defence evidence was led. The Trial Court convicted all accused. The High Court partly modified the conviction, acquitting one co-accused and reducing sentence for the appellant while maintaining guilt under Section 394 IPC. The appellant thereafter approached the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether conviction under Section 394 IPC was sustainable on the basis of ocular and circumstantial evidence?
ii. Whether refusal to participate in Test Identification Parade constitutes an incriminating circumstance?
iii. Whether belated plea of juvenility could be entertained without documentary proof?
iv. Whether the defence of mental unsoundness under Section 84 IPC was established?
v. Whether appellate courts should reappreciate evidence despite concurrent findings?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was argued that the absence of independent public witnesses and lack of injury on the complainant rendered the prosecution story doubtful. The delay of three days in lodging the FIR was asserted to be fatal. The appellant further contended that he was a juvenile at the time of the incident and suffered from mental illness, relying upon an OPD card and affidavit of his mother. It was argued that these mitigating factors vitiated the conviction and sentence.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsel for the State submitted that the testimonies of prosecution witnesses were consistent and reliable. It was argued that refusal to participate in TIP clearly indicated guilty conscience. The delay in FIR was explained as procedural and not substantive. The State further contended that pleas of juvenility and insanity were afterthoughts, unsupported by credible evidence, and rightly rejected by the High Court.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 394 IPC – Robbery with hurt
ii. Section 84 IPC – Act of person of unsound mind
iii. Section 25 Arms Act, 1959
iv. Section 313 CrPC – Examination of accused

I) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of guilt. It held that appellate courts should not routinely reappreciate evidence unless perversity is shown. The Court found the testimony of PW-1 to be natural and credible. The refusal of the appellant to participate in TIP without justification was held to be a strong incriminating circumstance. The Court rejected the plea of delay in FIR, noting that the complaint was made promptly and delay was procedural. The Court further held that pleas under Section 84 IPC and juvenility must be substantiated by reliable evidence and raised at trial stage. The appellant failed to produce any birth certificate, school record, or expert medical evidence. His conduct before and after the incident demonstrated cognitive awareness. The Court also noted that the appellant was untraceable despite efforts to assess his mental condition. The appeal was dismissed and bail cancelled .

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio of the case lies in reaffirming that credible ocular evidence, corroborated by circumstances, is sufficient for conviction under Section 394 IPC. Refusal to participate in TIP without cause reflects guilty conscience. Defences of insanity and juvenility must be proved with cogent evidence and raised at appropriate stage. Concurrent findings of fact deserve judicial deference.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that belated defences undermine the criminal justice process and obstruct proper appreciation of evidence. It also emphasized that procedural safeguards cannot be misused to defeat substantive justice.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Pleas under Section 84 IPC must be supported by expert medical evidence.
ii. Juvenility claims must be proved by authentic documents.
iii. TIP refusal may be treated as incriminating when unexplained.
iv. Appellate courts should respect concurrent factual findings.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment strengthens doctrinal clarity on criminal responsibility and evidentiary standards. It balances accused rights with societal interest in effective prosecution. The Court’s approach discourages abuse of appellate process through fabricated defences and reinforces discipline in criminal trials.

K) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

i. Ashwani Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 308
ii. T.N. Lakshmaiah v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 1 SCC 219

b) Important Statutes Referred

i. Indian Penal Code, 1860
ii. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
iii. Arms Act, 1959