Hostile victim testimony and contradictions in arrest timing vitiate conviction despite police identification and recovery.

The Appellant, Raju, was convicted by the Trial Court for robbery and possession of a deadly weapon under Sections 392/397/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that on July 29, 2015, the Appellant and an associate robbed the complainant (PW1) of a mobile phone at knife point near Metro Pillar 162, Seelampur.

PW1 filed an FIR stating he identified the Appellant at the scene and that the phone and knife were recovered from him.

However, during the trial, PW1 resiled from his statement, failing to identify the Appellant as the robber or the weapon as the one used in the crime.

The conviction rested primarily on the testimonies of police officials (PW3, PW4, PW5, and PW7) regarding the apprehension and recovery.

1. Whether there is any infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference regarding the identity of the accused and the recovery of the weapon

2. Whether the testimony of the police officials was sufficient to sustain a conviction despite the star witness (PW1) turning hostile

Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. regarding the right to appeal conviction

The principle from Tahir v. State and Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan that police officials are competent witnesses whose testimony does not legally require corroboration to be admissible

The rule from Prithi v. State of Haryana that the testimony of a hostile witness remains admissible if corroborated by other reliable evidence

The presumption under Section 114, Illustration (a) of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows a court to presume a person in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is the thief

The Court found significant contradictions in the prosecution’s timeline and procedure. While the incident allegedly occurred at 07:50 PM, the arrest memo (Ext. PW1/E) recorded the time of arrest as 12:40 AM, contradicting PW7’s claim of reaching the scene and arresting the accused at 09:10 PM

There were internal conflicts between PW3 and PW7 as to who actually handed over the recovered items and the accused

Crucially, while the prosecution sought to rely on the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, the Court held that such a presumption only triggers once the arrest and recovery are proved beyond doubt

Since the independent witness (PW1) denied the recovery from the accused and the police testimonies were inconsistent, the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts of possession and identity

The appeal was allowed, the judgment dated 06.06.2016 was set aside, and the Appellant was acquitted of all charges under Sections 392, 397/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The Court ordered the Appellant’s immediate release and the cancellation of his bail bond