Delhi High Court Acquits Life Convicts In Decade-Old Murder Case, Flags Unreliable Eyewitness

The Delhi High Court has set aside the conviction and life sentence of two men in a 2016 murder case, holding that the prosecution's case rested on an unreliable eyewitness whose testimony did not inspire confidence.

A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Madhu Jain allowed the appeals filed by the accused, who had been convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court.

The case pertained to the fatal shooting of one Vinay Singh in September 2016 near Maxfort School in Rohini. The trial court had relied heavily on the testimony of a sole eyewitness (PW-18), who claimed to have seen the accused approach the deceased on a motorcycle and fire at him at close range.

However, the High Court, upon reappreciating the evidence, found serious inconsistencies and improbabilities in the testimony of the said witness.

It further noted that it was “unnatural” for the eyewitness, being a relative of the deceased, to leave the hospital after the deceased was declared dead. “Ordinarily, a relative would stay at the hospital until close family members arrive or police formalities are completed,” it said.

Another key witness (PW-12), who had taken the injured to the hospital, did not identify or even acknowledge the presence of PW-18 either at the spot or at the hospital, casting doubt on his very presence.

Further, the Court flagged the manner in which the accused were allegedly identified. It observed that the witness claimed to have identified the accused by chance in the court while they were in police custody, without any prior Test Identification Parade. This, the Court held, weakened the prosecution case.

“This version of a chance meeting in the Court premises appears highly doubtful. The identification of the accused in police custody, without any prior Test Identification Parade (hereinafter 'TIP'), and that too allegedly by coincidence in the court complex, casts serious doubt on the credibility of this part of the prosecution case. The explanation offered by PW-18 appears to be an afterthought and does not inspire confidence.”

On an overall assessment, the Court held that the testimony of the sole eyewitness was not of such quality that it could form the basis of conviction.

As such, the Court granted benefit of doubt to the accused and set aside their conviction and sentence.

Appearance: Mr. Himanshu Anand Gupta, Ms. Mansi Yadav, Mr. Shekhar Anand Gupta, Mr. Sidharth Barua, Mr. Mike Desai, Ms. Navneet Kaur and Ms. Shivani Rampal, Advs. for Appellant; Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with Ms. Divya Yadav & Mr. Lalit Luthra, Advs. for Respondent

Case title: Virender Alias Bablu v. State

Case no.: CRL.A. 797/2025

Click here to read order