In a significant judgment emphasizing the sanctity of identification in criminal trials, the Delhi High Court has acquitted a man convicted in a robbery case nearly 23 years ago. Setting aside the trial court's order, the High Court observed that criminal liability cannot be fixed on a "ghost" or an uncertain entity when the prosecution fails to establish the identity of the offender beyond reasonable doubt.

Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav, presiding over the case, highlighted that "identity" is the bedrock of criminal law. The court remarked, "In criminal law, as in other spheres of society, identity—or rather identification—is of utmost importance... You can’t hold a ghost responsible for the offences, neither can a person who is not responsible."

The matter dates back over two decades to a robbery incident where the appellant, Feroz Ahmad, was alleged to have been involved along with several other accused persons. Following the investigation and trial, the lower court convicted Ahmad primarily based on the testimony of the complainant and other witnesses who identified him in the "dock" (during the court proceedings).

The appellant had challenged this conviction in 2003, languishing under the shadow of the trial court’s verdict for over 20 years before the High Court finally took up the appeal for its final disposal.

The core of the High Court's scrutiny was how the police identified Feroz Ahmad as the culprit. In legal terms, when a suspect is a stranger to the witness, the police must conduct a Test Identification Parade (TIP). This is a process where the suspect is lined up with similar-looking individuals, and the witness is asked to point them out.

The High Court found several fatal flaws in this process:

Unmuffled Face: The court noted that the appellant was produced before the witnesses with an "unmuffled" (uncovered) face. This meant the witnesses might have seen him before the official parade, making the identification biased.
Delayed Precautions: Although the police eventually wrapped his face, the court observed that "damage was already caused to the case of the prosecution" by then.
Unreliable Dock Identification: The court reiterated that identifying someone in a courtroom years after a crime is "weak evidence" if a proper TIP was not conducted or was compromised during the investigation.

Justice Yadav also expressed serious reservations about the "recovery" of stolen items. The court noticed that the police recorded "supplementary statements" in a manner that seemed like an attempt to fill the holes (lacunae) in their initial story.

The Bench noted that criminal law cannot proceed on "conjecture or uncertainty." If there is a doubt about whether the person standing in the dock is the same person who committed the crime, the benefit of that doubt must always go to the accused.

The judgment serves as a stern reminder to investigative agencies about the importance of procedure. The Court explained that unless the actual culprit is brought to book with certainty, the purpose of criminal law is defeated.

"Offence took place, noticed, but then what? Unless the culprit is not brought to book, no purpose would be served. And how to do that unless certainty about the complicity of the assailant is there?" the Bench asked, before concluding that the prosecution’s case against Ahmad was built on a shaky foundation of ambiguous identification.

Granting the "benefit of doubt," the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. After 23 years of legal battle, Feroz Ahmad stands acquitted, with the court reinforcing the principle that it is better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent man (or a "ghost" of a suspect) to be wrongly punished due to faulty identification.

Case Title: Feroz Ahmad v. State
Case No: CRL.A. 429/2003
Bench: Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav
Representing Appellant: Mrs. Rajdipa Behura, Sr. Adv.