'Law Can't Hold A Ghost Responsible': Delhi High Court Acquits Robbery Convict After 23 Years Over Ambiguity In Identification

The Delhi High Court has acquitted a man convicted in a robbery case nearly 23 years after the trial court convicted him, holding that the prosecution failed to establish his identity beyond reasonable doubt and that the test identification parade (TIP) was unreliable.Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, observing that criminal law cannot proceed on conjecture or uncertainty, and that liability cannot be fixed when the identity of the offender itself remains doubtful.“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,” the bench observed.The case related to a robbery in which the appellant was alleged to have participated along with other accused persons. The conviction was primarily founded on dock identification by the complainant and witnesses. The defence had consistently argued that the appellant was a stranger to the witnesses and that the identification evidence was unsafe.The High Court noted that where the accused is not previously known to the witnesses, a properly conducted TIP assumes great significance, as it tests the veracity of witness identification at the earliest possible stage. In the present case, however, the Court found that the TIP was compromised, observing that the accused had not been kept properly muffled and that there were serious doubts as to whether witnesses had an opportunity to see him prior to the parade.“...the Appellant was produced, in unmuffled face. Although subsequently the Appellant was put under face wrap but by then damage was already caused to the case of the prosecution,” it observed.The Bench also expressed reservations about the recovery evidence relied upon by the prosecution, noting that the manner in which supplementary statements were recorded gave rise to an apprehension that they were used to fill lacunae in the investigation.Accordingly, the Court granted the appellant benefit of doubt and acquitted him.Appearance: Mrs. Rajdipa Behura, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Philpmon Kani, Ms. Neha Dobriyal, Advs. for Appellant; Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for State with SI Deepak Chandra, PS Naraina for RespondentCase title: Feroz Ahmad v. StateCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 195Case no.: CRL.A. 429/2003Click here to read order

'Law Can't Hold A Ghost Responsible': Delhi High Court Acquits Robbery Convict After 23 Years Over Ambiguity In Identification

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags