Criminal Law Cannot Hold A “Ghost” Responsible, Identity Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt; Delhi HC Acquits Robbery Convict After Two Decades As Identity Remains Doubtful
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav has acquitted an appellant-accused in a robbery case, more than two decades after a trial court convicted and sentenced him, after finding that the prosecution did not prove his identity beyond reasonable doubt and that the proposed test identification process could not be treated as dependable. The Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed for the alleged robbery in which two persons were attacked in a parking area and a briefcase and other belongings were taken, with one victim sustaining a gunshot injury. It held that criminal liability cannot be fixed on conjecture when the offender’s identity itself remains in doubt.
The prosecution case arose from an incident dated 28.06.2000 at about 8:30 PM in the parking area of Naraina Industrial Area Phase-II, where two persons were allegedly robbed and one of them sustained a gunshot injury. An FIR was registered at Police Station Naraina. Subsequently, the appellant was arrested on 11.02.2001 in a separate case under Section 25 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Mayapuri. Pursuant to a disclosure statement, a briefcase allegedly connected with the robbery was recovered from the appellant’s jhuggi.
After the concerned police station was informed, investigation in the robbery case was taken over and a Test Identification Parade (TIP) was proposed. The appellant declined to participate, stating that he had been shown to the complainant and that his photographs had been taken. A chargesheet was filed against him under Sections 394/34 and 397 IPC. The trial court convicted and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment and fine.
In appeal, the appellant questioned the identification evidence, the alleged recovery of the briefcase, inconsistencies in the FIR registration timeline, and discrepancies in witness testimonies. The State contended that the victim’s testimony, medical evidence, and recovery of the briefcase corroborated the prosecution case.
The Court observed at the outset that, “In criminal law, as in other spheres of society, identity rather identification is of utmost importance to so many aspects of life, as also to fasten the liability. Offence took place, noticed but then what? So unless, the culprit is not brought to book no purpose would be served. And how to do that unless certainty about the complicity of assailant is there. There comes identification and without it criminal law would be of no use. You can't hold a ghost responsible for the offences, neither can a person who is not responsible.”
While examining the evidence of PW2, the Court recorded that the complainant had deposed: “It seems that accused present today in the court is the same person… My eyes are weak… I could see the deem faces of those boys… ‘Aaj jo ladka mane phachana vo mujhe vohi lag raha lakin me confirmation se nahln kehi sakta’ because I saw him on that day in dark.” The Court noted that this reflected uncertainty regarding identification.
The Court stated, “The aspect of identification seems to be, on a shaky wicket and cannot be trusted to record a finding against the appellant.” It further recorded that PW3 had deposed, “I did not seen that boys,” and observed that there was no clear and definitive identification of the appellant.
On the evidentiary value of TIP, the Court stated, “The Test Identification Parade (TIP) is not a substantive piece of evidence rather a tool in the investigation process… it cannot be substituted for substantive evidence which remains to be the statement made by the witness before the court.” It also recorded, “As a general rule, identification of the accused for the first time in the court without there being any corroboration whatsoever cannot form the sole basis for conviction.”
Regarding recovery, the Court observed, “It is against the common sense, logic and reason of a reasonably prudent man that a criminal would keep the briefcase with such papers…” and further noted discrepancies in the testimonies about the time and place of recovery. The Court also recorded inconsistencies concerning the production of the appellant in unmuffled face and supplementary statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and stated, “Thus, it is evident that the aspect of identification of the Appellant… is not aboveboard rather very doubtful.”
The Court directed: “As a result, the appeal is allowed. The Appellant is given benefit of doubt and he stands acquitted of the charges.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mrs. Rajdipa Behura, Senior Advocate with Mr. Philpmon Kani and Ms. Neha Dobriyal, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for State with SI Deepak Chandra, PS Naraina
Case Title: Feroz Ahmad v. State of NCT of Delhi
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:1084
Case Number: CRL.A. 429/2003
Bench: Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav
