MERE ABSENCE OF INDEPENDENT WITNESSES OR CCTV FOOTAGE DOES NOT VITIATE CONVICTION BASED ON RELIABLE OCULAR EVIDENCE

On August 19, 2022, the complainant, Sanjay Yadav, was intercepted and robbed at knife-point of ₹1,200 and a Nokia mobile phone while returning from purchasing milk.

The appellant was allegedly apprehended near the spot by the complainant and public persons.

Following a trial in Sessions Case No. 741/2022, the Trial Court convicted the appellant on December 15, 2025, for offences under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC, sentencing him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of non-examination of independent witnesses, material contradictions regarding the recovery of items, and alleged false implication due to a prior FIR (No. 559/2021) filed by the appellant against the complainant’s relatives.

1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt despite the non-joining of independent public witnesses and absence of CCTV footage.

2. Whether the contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-7 regarding the location and manner of recovery were sufficient to vitiate the conviction.

3. Whether the sentence of 10 years was appropriate given the nature of the offence and the statutory minimums under the IPC.

The Court applied Section 392 of the IPC, which prescribes punishment for robbery for up to ten years.

Section 397 of the IPC, which mandates a minimum sentence of seven years if a deadly weapon is used during a robbery.

It relied on the precedent Chandrappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, establishing the scope of appellate interference in convictions.

Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, which holds that prosecution cases cannot be discarded solely due to the reluctance of public persons to join as witnesses.

Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the set-off of pre-conviction detention.

The Court found the testimony of PW-1 (complainant) to be consistent and foundational, noting that his version of the armed robbery remained unshaken during cross-examination.

It dismissed the challenge to PW-2’s testimony, ruling that being the complainant’s nephew does not inherently disqualify a witness if the presence at the spot is naturally explained.

The Court observed that the recovery of the knife and stolen property shortly after the incident provided sufficient corroboration.

Regarding the procedural lapses, the Court held that the non-collection of CCTV footage and the failure to join independent witnesses were not fatal because the ocular evidence was cogent and the reluctance of the public to participate in criminal trials is a recognized reality.

While the conviction was upheld, the Court noted that no physical injury was caused to the complainant and the value of property was low. Consequently, it exercised its discretion to balance the appellant’s criminal antecedents with the specific circumstances of the current offence.

It modified the sentence from ten years to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, the statutory minimum under Section 397 IPC, while maintaining the fine of ₹10,000 and the default sentence. The appeal was partly allowed only to the extent of the reduction in the duration of the sentence.