Safiya Malik

A petition seeking leave to appeal against an acquittal in a case concerning allegations of kidnapping and robbery has been dismissed by the High Court of Delhi. The petitioner challenged the trial court’s judgment, contending that the acquittal was based on a misappreciation of evidence and legal infirmities. However, after a detailed examination of the trial court’s findings, the High Court concluded that there was no legal ground to interfere with the acquittal.

The case arose from an incident that occurred on the night of October 28, 2012. The complainant, Rajpal Singh, a driver employed with news agency IBN7, was having dinner at a roadside eatery when he was approached by four unidentified individuals. These individuals requested him to drive them towards Seemapuri, Delhi. When he hesitated, they allegedly threatened him with a country-made pistol (katta) and forced him to comply.

During the drive, the accused allegedly assaulted the complainant, robbed him of his wallet containing his ATM card, driving license, and cash, and left him unconscious. When he regained consciousness, he found himself tied inside the trunk of his vehicle near a fuel station. A passerby assisted him in escaping, following which he reported the incident to the police. An FIR (No. 442/2012) was registered under Sections 365 (kidnapping or abducting with intent to confine), 395 (dacoity), 397 (robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Also Read: Supreme Court Slams Gwalior Municipal Corporation’s Bid Restrictions, Calls Exclusion of Indian Firms ‘Wholly Untenable’

The investigation led to the arrest of five individuals: Danish, Laxman, Rahul, Rajkumar, and Amit. Police officials claimed that some of the stolen articles, including the complainant’s wallet, ATM card, and driving license, were recovered from them.

The prosecution examined 19 witnesses in support of its case. However, the trial court, after a detailed assessment of the evidence, found multiple inconsistencies, contradictions in testimonies of prosecution witnesses, and a lack of independent corroboration. It also pointed out lapses in the forensic evidence. Consequently, all the accused were acquitted on December 6, 2016. The State subsequently challenged this acquittal by filing an appeal.

The High Court examined the appeal by applying settled legal principles governing interference in acquittals. It referred to Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024), which laid down that an acquittal should not be set aside unless there is a demonstrable legal perversity or clear misappreciation of evidence.

One of the significant issues raised in the appeal was the variation in the complainant’s statements at different stages of the investigation. Initially, he mentioned two attackers in the DD entry but later increased this number to four in the FIR and six in his testimony before the court. The High Court observed that "the unexplained contradictions in the prosecution’s star witness’ version cast serious doubt on the reliability of the case."

The court also examined procedural lapses, particularly concerning the timing of the FIR. The FIR was officially registered at 8:50 AM on October 29, 2012, but the Investigating Officer reportedly received it at 11:30 AM. The prosecution failed to explain this delay adequately. Additionally, contradictions emerged in the testimonies of police officials regarding the location and time of vehicle seizure. While one witness testified that the vehicle was pushed to the police station before being examined, another claimed it was seized at the crime scene itself.

Regarding forensic evidence, the High Court noted that although the complainant alleged he was bleeding after the assault, no blood samples were collected from the crime scene or his clothing. A police officer had mentioned seeing the complainant in a blood-stained shirt, yet no efforts were made to preserve this piece of evidence. Furthermore, forensic reports did not conclusively establish the presence of the accused inside the complainant’s vehicle.

Another critical aspect was the identification process. The complainant admitted in court that he had seen photographs of the accused at the police station before formally identifying them. The High Court found this problematic, noting that "the identification of the accused was tainted as it was not done through an independent Test Identification Parade but rather influenced by prior exposure to their photographs."

Additionally, the trial court had raised concerns about the lack of independent witnesses. The prosecution relied heavily on testimonies of police officers, but no neutral bystander or witness could corroborate the allegations against the accused. The High Court observed that this absence of independent corroboration further weakened the prosecution’s case.

The court held that in criminal trials, the standard of proof required is beyond a reasonable doubt. It referenced Goverdhan & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025 INSC 47), stating that "reasonable doubt must not be a speculative or imaginary doubt but must arise from inconsistencies, contradictions, or gaps in the prosecution's evidence." Given the inconsistencies and gaps in evidence, the court found no compelling reason to set aside the trial court’s verdict.

The High Court further applied the principle that where two views are possible, the one favoring the accused must be adopted. It cited Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973), which held that "judicial enthusiasm for presumed innocence must be tempered with pragmatism, but excessive leniency in acquittals may erode public faith in the legal system." However, in this case, it found that the prosecution’s failure to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt entitled the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

Also Read: Calcutta High Court: "Any Transfer After Winding-Up Is Void Ab Initio"—Applicants’ Claim Rejected

The court stated that there was no legal infirmity, perversity, or error in the trial court’s reasoning. It observed, "The judgment is well-reasoned, does not rely on extraneous considerations, and does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting reversal." Based on this, the court upheld the trial court’s decision.

The final order stated that the judgment dated December 6, 2016, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Court, would remain in effect. The petition was dismissed along with any pending applications, and the court directed that the order be uploaded on the website.

The petitioner was represented by Ms. Priyanka Dalal, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State, while the respondents appeared in person.

Case Title: State v. Danish & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC: 1294
Case Number: CRL.L.P. 399/2017 & CRL.M.A. 11454/2017
Bench: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh 

[Read/Download order]