Delhi HC acquits man in 2000 robbery case, cites doubt over identity and recovery

The Delhi High Court has acquitted a man convicted in a 2000 robbery case, holding that identification of the culprit is fundamental to criminal law and that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, observing that “you can’t hold a ghost responsible for offences”.

The appellant, Feroz Ahmad, had been convicted by a trial court and sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment for the robbery that took place on June 28, 2000, in the parking area of Naraina Industrial Area Phase-II.

The case was registered at Naraina police station. A disclosure statement in another case allegedly led to the recovery of a briefcase from the Mr. Ahmad’s jhuggi on February 12, 2001 – nearly eight months after the incident. The briefcase was said to be the stolen property.

Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav, in the judgment delivered on February 10, noted that the prosecution’s case suffered from serious doubts regarding identification. It took into account that Mr Ajay Jain, whose briefcase was robbed, admitted in his testimony that there was darkness at the spot and that he could see only the dim faces of the assailants.

He also stated that he had certain vision-related issues and was unsure of the appellant’s identity.

The court observed that the victims had only a brief opportunity to see the attackers and that the incident occurred around 8.00-8.30 p.m., when it was already dark. In such circumstances, and in light of the complainant’s uncertainty, there was “practically no evidence” linking Mr. Ahmad to the crime.

The Bench also found the alleged recovery of the briefcase suspect. It noted that the briefcase reportedly contained visiting cards and documents directly connected to the complainant.

Calling it contrary to “common sense, logic and reason of a reasonably prudent man,” the court questioned why a criminal would retain incriminating documents for eight months, especially when they were of no value to him. The court held that the recovery itself appeared doubtful.

Holding that the prosecution’s case was not credible enough to sustain a conviction for robbery, the High Court ruled that it would not be safe or appropriate to uphold the conviction. Allowing the appeal, the court granted the appellant the benefit of the doubt and acquitted him of all charges.