Conviction Can Be Recorded On Sole Testimony Of Police Officials Without Corroboration From Public Witness: Delhi HC Upholds Conviction In Chain-Snatching Case
The Delhi High Court, while upholding the conviction of two accused in a chain-snatching case, held that a conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of police officials without corroboration from a public witness.
The Bench stated, “It is a matter of common knowledge that individuals from the public sphere often display reluctance to participate in investigative proceedings.” The Court clarified that while the failure of the investigating officer to involve public witnesses could be considered a procedural lapse, it alone cannot be the sole reason for discrediting the entirety of the prosecution's case.
A Single Bench of Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar observed, “As far as the question of non-joining of public witnesses is concerned, no doubt, the IO has not joined the public witnesses but that by itself does not falsify the entire case of the prosecution. The testimony of the official witnesses cannot be thrown away simply on the ground that IO failed to join public witnesses…Moreover, the failure of the IO to involve public witnesses can be deemed a procedural lapse on the part of the IO; however, such omission alone cannot serve as the sole rationale for discrediting the entirety of the prosecution's case and the testimony provided by credible official witnesses.”
Advocate Sachin Aggrwal represented the appellant, while APP Amit Ahlawat appeared for the respondent.
The accused were arrested by the police shortly after snatching a gold chain by pointing a pistol at the victim. An FIR under Sections 186, 353, 411 and 34 of the IPC and Sections 27, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act was registered against them.
The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 379 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years.
The accused argued that the police officials had falsely implicated them as they had previous involvements in such cases. But the Court pointed out that one of the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C had denied the recovery of gold chain from his possession and therefore, the “burden rested upon the accused to provide a satisfactory account regarding the acquisition of the chain taken from the victim. Regrettably, the accused has not fulfilled this obligation.”
The Court considered the testimonies provided by the eyewitnesses and pointed out that recovery of the victim’s chain was confirmed after one of the accused had confessed to involvement in the snatching.
“In the instant case, the statement made by the victim before the police and the statement made in court are consistent. Though the victim was crossexamined, but nothing has come out in the cross-examination to shake her testimony or to make her testimony unbelievable,” the Court remarked.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Tahir v. State (1996) 3 SCC 338 wherein it was established that no infirmity can be attached to the testimony of police officials, merely because they belong to the police force. In light of the same, the High Court held, “Conviction can be recorded on the sole testimony of police officials without corroboration from a public witness, if it inspires confidence.”
Consequently, the Court directed the accused to surrender before the Trial Court to serve the remaining portion of the sentence.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Naresh @ Satya v. State (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:3202)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Sachin Aggrwal and Aditya Chaudhary
Respondent: APP Amit Ahlawat
