'Victim Didn't Identify Accused In Court' : Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted For Rape Of 5-Year-Old

The Supreme Court  reiterated that identification of an accused during a Test Identification Parade (TIP) cannot be treated as substantive proof of identity and is only meant to corroborate the identification subsequently made by a witness in court.

“TIP is intended to test the memory and capacity of a witness to identify a person whom the witness claims to have seen during the occurrence and to lend corroboration to the identification subsequently made before the Court. The test identification proceedings undertaken during investigation cannot be treated as substantive proof of identity. Substantive proof would be the identification of the accused by the witnesses while testifying on oath or dock identification in common parlance”, the Court observed.

The Court acquitted a man convicted of raping a five-year-old girl, finding the prosecution case fatally deficient as the child victim did not identify the accused during her deposition, although the accused was present in court and she had stated that she could identify him.

A bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan held that the failure to conduct the accused's identification during the victim's deposition was particularly significant because the accused, Dhanraj, was not named in the FIR. Further, the Court observed that the victim had admitted that the police had disclosed his name to her, and the prosecution primarily relied upon the TIP to establish his identity.

“We feel that the presiding officer of the trial Court as well as the Public Prosecutor were equally responsible for this fatal omission. The significance of this omission is further amplified by the fact that the accused was not named in the FIR; the victim categorically stated that the police had disclosed his name to her and; the prosecution merely relied upon the TIP to establish the identity of the accused”, said the Court.

The Court also criticised the trial court judge and the Public Prosecutor for failing to ensure that the victim identified Dhanraj during her deposition. The Court noted that Dhanraj was present in court when the victim's evidence was recorded and she victim had stated in her examination-in-chief that she could identify Dhanraj if he came before her.

Yet, no effort was made to have her identify him, the Court observed. The Court said the omission was significant because the identity of the accused was a crucial issue in the case.

“Yet, owing to the sheer negligence on the part of the Public Prosecutor concerned and the gross ignorance exhibited by the learned Presiding Officer, no effort was made to have the accused-appellant identified by the victim during her deposition, so as to confirm the fact that the person standing trial was indeed the assailant. The omission was neither occasioned by any unavoidable circumstance nor beyond the control of the Court. It was a simple step that could readily have been undertaken in the course of recording the substantive evidence, particularly when the identity of the accused was itself a crucial issue in the case.”

The Court further held that the Presiding Officer and the Public Prosecutor were equally responsible" for the fatal omission. It reiterated that a criminal court cannot act as a mere spectator and must ensure that material evidence necessary for a just adjudication is brought on record.

“A criminal trial is not merely an adversarial contest between the prosecution and the accused. The ultimate obligation of the Court is to discover the truth and ensure that the finding of guilt rests upon legally admissible and reliable evidence. The Court is not expected to remain a mute spectator where an aspect of evidence bearing directly upon the guilt or innocence of the accused is left unattended. The role of the Court is not confined to passively recording the evidence as presented by the parties; it is required to ensure that the material evidence necessary for a just adjudication is properly brought on record”, the Court observed.

The case arose from an FIR registered at Police Station Kekri, Ajmer, on December 7, 2016, against an unknown person under Section 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act. The appellant, Dhanraj, was arrested on February 5, 2017 after investigation, and the victim identified him in a TIP. He was subsequently convicted by the Special Judge, POCSO, Ajmer, and sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 376 and 376(2)(i)(j) IPC. The Rajasthan High Court upheld the conviction on August 20, 2025.

Before the Supreme Court, Dhanraj argued that the victim had never identified him in court. He also pointed out that a sketch of the alleged assailant, prepared with the victim's assistance in Jaipur, was not produced before the trial court. He further argued that no DNA or other scientific evidence connected him to the offence.

The Supreme Court noted that the victim stated during her examination-in-chief that she could identify Dhanraj if he came before her. However, during cross-examination, she admitted that the police had told her Dhanraj's name.

The Court reiterated that a TIP conducted during investigation is not substantive evidence but is meant to corroborate the identification subsequently made by a witness in court.

The Court also noted that the Investigating Officer had failed to inquire into complaints by Dhanraj and his family alleging false implication due to political rivalry. The officer had also admitted that the sketch prepared with the victim's assistance was not available and had not been produced before the trial court, the Court noted.

The Court also found a discrepancy between the medical evidence and the prosecution's version of the incident. The victim was examined on December 7, 2016, two days after the alleged incident. The doctor found a wound which was 5-7 days old. The Court said this meant that the injuries did not match the prosecution's case that the assault took place on December 5.

The Court held that the cumulative effect of the deficiencies created reasonable doubt about the prosecution case. It noted that Dhanraj had remained in custody for more than nine years and opined that no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter to the trial Court for recording the testimony of the victim afresh.

“The fatal flaw on the aspect of identification cannot be cured at this belated stage even if we were to consider remanding the case for de novo trial. The material evidence and deposition of key witnesses is already before us and, upon a careful examination thereof, we are of the firm opinion that the deficiencies noted above go to the root of the matter and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt so as to bring home the charges against the accused-appellant”, the Court held.

The Supreme Court set aside the trial court's September 5, 2019 judgment and the Rajasthan High Court's August 20, 2025 judgment. It acquitted Dhanraj of all charges and directed that he be released if not wanted in any other case.

Case no. – Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 2026

Case Title – Dhanraj v. State of Rajasthan

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 906