Cannot convict a ‘ghost’: Why Delhi High Court acquitted a robbery accused

The Delhi High Court recently set aside the conviction of a man sentenced in a robbery and shooting case after finding that the prosecution failed to establish the attacker’s identity and that key aspects of the investigation were unreliable [Feroz Ahmad v. State of NCT of Delhi]

The court granted the accused the benefit of the doubt and acquitted him of the charges.

Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav underlined the importance of proper identification in criminal trials, saying that a ghost cannot be held responsible for the offence.

"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 Court said.

The case stemmed from a robbery in a parking area in June 2000 during which two men were attacked and robbed, and one of them was shot.

Several months later, the accused was arrested in a separate arms-related case. On the basis of a disclosure statement, police claimed they recovered a briefcase said to be belonging to one of the victims, which they used to link him to the earlier robbery.

The trial court found the accused guilty under provisions of the Indian Penal Code relating to robbery and causing injury with a weapon. He was sentenced to multiple terms of rigorous imprisonment.

He later challenged the conviction before the Delhi High Court, arguing that the investigation was flawed, the recovery was unreliable, and the witnesses had failed to clearly identify him as the assailant.

While reviewing the evidence, the Court pointed out that the main injured witness had stated the area was dark and he could only make out “dim faces.” He also told the court he had vision problems and could not be certain about the identity of the accused.

The second victim, who was also robbed, testified that he did not see the attackers at all.

The Court held that such testimony did not provide a clear and reliable identification.

The High Court also examined the accused’s refusal to participate in the test identification parade (TIS). It noted that when he was produced in court on a production warrant, his face was not covered, and on the same day the complainant appeared in the court premises without having been formally summoned.

The investigating officer later claimed that the complainant identified the accused there, though the complainant stated that his statement had been recorded only once in the hospital after the incident.

In view of these contradictions, the Court held that there was a real possibility the accused had been seen or shown to the witness beforehand, compromising the fairness of the identification process.

The Court also raised serious doubts about the recovery of the briefcase, noting contradictions in police officers’ accounts about when and how it was found. It pointed out that no independent public witnesses were present even though the recovery was said to have happened in a crowded area.

The court added that it seemed unlikely a robber would keep the victim’s personal documents for months after the crime.

"It is against the common sense, logic and reason of a reasonably prudent man that a criminal would keep the briefcase with such papers which may connect briefcase with the offence / complainant. This is not digestible," said the Court.

The Court also highlighted confusion surrounding the timing of the FIR, hospital records, and the appearance of an unexplained individual who was shown as accompanying the injured man to the hospital in medical documents but was denied by the main witnesses.

Taking all facts into account, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Senior Advocate Rajdipa Behura along with advocates Philpmon Kani and Neha Dobriyal appeared for the accused.

The State was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Yudhvir Singh Chauhan.

[Read Judgment]