Mohd. Anwar v. The State (N.C.T. of Delhi)
Background
In 2001, the complainant was robbed at knifepoint/gunpoint by three men, including the appellant, who was later caught by police during a routine bus check along with a knife and had refused to participate in an identification parade. The trial court convicted him of robbery with attempt to cause hurt; the Delhi High Court on appeal reduced his conviction and sentence (to two years) but upheld his guilt, while acquitting a co-accused on separate doubts about identification. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued for the first time that he had been a juvenile (15 years old) at the time of the offence and was suffering from a mental disorder, relying on an OPD card copy and his mother's affidavit.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that appellate courts should not routinely re-appreciate evidence where trial and appellate courts have concurrently found guilt, and found the prosecution's twelve witnesses credible and consistent. It rejected the belated juvenility and insanity claims, noting there was no supporting birth certificate, school record or medical/expert evidence, that the appellant's own 1860s-era Section 313 CrPC statement indicated he was already an adult at the time of the offence, and that his conduct (fleeing the scene, trying to escape arrest) showed no mental incapacity. The Court noted it had even tried to get the appellant mentally examined in 2020 but he had gone untraceable for years. The appeal was dismissed and his bail cancelled, directing him to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.
Lesson Learnt
Defences like juvenility or mental unsoundness must be raised with supporting documentary or medical evidence at the earliest stage (ideally at trial), raising them for the first time, years later, without proof, will not succeed before appellate courts, and courts generally will not re-examine evidence that two lower courts have already consistently accepted.