Without Clear Identity, Criminal Law Would Be of No Use: Delhi High Court Acquits Man Over Doubtful Identification

In the matter, the testimonies relied on admitted that there was darkness at the spot of the incident and only “dim faces” could be seen, while vision issues of the witnesses and the victim were acknowledged as well.

Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav observed, “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”.

Senior Advocate Rajdipa Behura appeared for the appellant and Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP appeared for the respondent.

As per the facts, on 28-06-2000 in an incident in Naraina Industrial Area Phase-II, the complainant Ajay Jain was shot at and robbed of a briefcase allegedly containing ₹20,000. The appellant, Feroz Ahmad, was later arrested in a separate Arms Act case, and a disclosure statement allegedly led to recovery of the robbed briefcase from his jhuggi. He was convicted by the trial court under Sections 394/34 and 397 IPC and sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment.

However, the High Court noting the circumstances held that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant’s identity beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court noted that the incident occurred at night and that the complainant himself admitted there was darkness at the spot. Ajay Jain deposed that he could see only “dim faces” and further stated in court that the accused “seems to be” one of the assailants but that he could not say so with confirmation. He also acknowledged having vision issues. The second victim, Mukesh Gupta, categorically stated that he did not see the assailants at all.

In these circumstances, the Court held that identification for the first time in court, without a reliable Test Identification Parade, was unsafe to sustain a conviction.

The appellant had refused to participate in the TIP, claiming that he had been shown to the complainant earlier and that his photographs had been taken. The Court took note of the fact that the accused was produced in court unmuffled and that the complainant was present in the court complex on that very day, raising doubts about the fairness of the identification process.

The Court also expressed reservations about the alleged recovery of the briefcase nearly eight months after the incident. Police witnesses contradicted each other on the timing and manner of recovery, and no independent public witness was joined despite advance information.

The briefcase was said to contain visiting cards and documents linking it to the complainant. The Court found it implausible that such material would be retained by the accused for months after the offence.

Additional inconsistencies relating to the timing of the FIR and the presence of a person named Navneet, recorded in the medico-legal certificate as accompanying the complainant to hospital but denied by the complainant in testimony, further added to the doubt. While individually minor, the Court held that such discrepancies, when viewed cumulatively, weakened the prosecution’s case.

“…it is apparent that it would be unsafe to tie the incident of the robbery with the Appellant. Especially that the appellant has not been identified in a clear and cogent manner, the recovery is doubtful, there is a mix up in the recording of the FIR giving scope for manipulation and there is a mysterious individual Navneet who has emerged out of nowhere though insignificantly but in the entirety of the case, adds to the doubtful circumstances. It appear that the case of the prosecution against the accused is not credible enough. As such it would not be appropriate and safe to hold the Appellant guilty of the offence of robbery”, the bench further noted.

Therefore, the court held that it would be unsafe to sustain the conviction in the absence of clear and cogent identification, the Court extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted the appellant of all charges.

Cause Title: Feroz Ahmad v. State Of NCT Of Delhi [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1084]

Appearances:

Appellant: Rajdipa Behura, Sr. Adv., Philpmon Kani, Neha Dobriyal, Advocates.

Respondent: Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP, SI Deepak Chandra, PS Naraina.

Click here to read/download the Judgment