Bijender @ Mandar v. State of Haryana
Background
In 1999, a complainant travelling by motorcycle to buy land was robbed at gunpoint of Rs. 46,000 near Sonipat, Haryana. The appellant was arrested along with others and, based on his police statement, a sum of Rs. 5,000 wrapped in a red cloth and a bank passbook (allegedly belonging to the complainant) were recovered from his home. Although the trial court convicted the appellant and co-accused and the High Court upheld the conviction (while reducing the sentence), the complainant and his nephew, the only eyewitnesses, both later testified in court that the appellant was not involved and disputed the recovery.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court found that the prosecution's case rested almost entirely on the appellant's disclosure statement and the resulting recovery, but this evidence was deeply unreliable: the complainant and his nephew (the sole eyewitnesses) denied the appellant's involvement, the "independent" witness to the recovery was actually a companion of the complainant, the recovered items were common objects easily available in the market, and the recovery occurred nearly a month after the alleged crime. The Court held that where recovery evidence is not credible and there is no corroboration, the benefit of the doubt must go to the accused rather than convicting merely because crime rates are rising. It set aside both lower court decisions and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
Lesson Learnt
A criminal conviction cannot rest solely on a police-recorded "disclosure statement" and an associated recovery if that evidence is doubtful, uncorroborated, and contradicted by the very witnesses the prosecution relies on: courts must give the accused the benefit of the doubt rather than convict based on suspicion or general social concern about crime.