A Conviction Cannot Be Founded Merely on Forensics When Identity Remains Unestablished: Delhi High Court Acquits Youth Accused in 2015 Chain Snatching and Shooting Incident

“Ballistic Report Alone, Without Positive Identification, Cannot Be the Sole Pillar of Conviction”— Delhi High Court, while delivering a landmark judgment , set aside the conviction of Furkan @ Faizan, who had been held guilty under serious charges including Sections 393/397/34 IPC and Sections 25/27 Arms Act. The Court found that the prosecution’s failure to establish the identity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt rendered the conviction unsustainable, notwithstanding the ballistic evidence.

The case revolved around a 2015 incident in East Delhi, where two assailants on a yellow Pulsar motorcycle attempted to snatch a chain from a woman and, upon resistance, opened fire—injuring a minor girl. The prosecution alleged Furkan to be the pillion rider who fired the shot, but the High Court found the link tenuous and largely speculative.

“A Helmeted Face Cannot Support Identification; Doubt Must Be Resolved in Favour of the Accused”

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, delivering the judgment, categorically observed:

“The complainant’s mother explicitly stated that the pillion rider was wearing a helmet with the visor tilted down. She could not see his face.”

The injured child also gave consistent testimony that both assailants had their faces covered. The complainant himself could not confirm the identity of either person involved. The Court held that such lack of identification is not a minor flaw—it is fatal to the prosecution’s case.

The Court further noted that Furkan refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade (TIP), claiming his photograph had already been shown to witnesses. The prosecution failed to disprove this assertion, weakening their case even further.

“A Ballistic Report Does Not Substitute for Human Testimony; Forensic Links Must Be Supported by Factual Foundations”

The prosecution relied entirely on a pistol recovered from Furkan’s rented premises in another FIR registered two days later (FIR No. 715/2015). A forensic report had linked that pistol to the empty cartridge found at the scene of the present crime.

But the Court found this insufficient and procedurally questionable, noting:

“There exists variance with respect to the date on which the pistol came to be recovered. The seizure memo states 14.10.2015, whereas the Investigating Officer stated 15.10.2015.”

The Court held that such contradictions raise serious doubts about the reliability and continuity of the evidence, particularly when there was no other incriminating material.

Further, the Court expressed deep concern that no efforts were made to trace the auto-rickshaw driver or recover the motorcycle—two of the most vital components in the prosecution’s narrative. It added:

“The I.O. also made no attempt to ascertain the appellant’s location through CDR analysis or by any other means.”

“An Accused’s Past Cannot Be Tried in the Present; Conviction Must Stand on the Evidence of This Case Alone”

The prosecution sought to strengthen its case by highlighting Furkan’s alleged involvement in multiple other cases, including under Section 307 IPC. The Court refused to be swayed by this, stating:

“The appellant’s conviction cannot be upheld merely because of his stated involvement in other cases. The prosecution is duty-bound to prove the facts of the present case.”

Justice Ohri reiterated that criminal justice cannot function on the basis of predisposition or profiling, and that each case must be judged on its own merits, grounded in independent and reliable evidence.

“Conviction Cannot Survive in the Face of Reasonable Doubt”

In setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant, the Court concluded:

“In the absence of positive identification of the appellant as pillion rider on the motorcycle, the only incriminating evidence that remains is the ballistic report, with a doubt having been created regarding the seizure of the pistol itself.”

The judgment not only reaffirms the bedrock principle that “justice must not be done in suspicion, but in proof”, but also serves as a clear warning against convicting an accused on the strength of isolated scientific evidence when the chain of circumstantial facts is incomplete or corrupted.

The appellant was acquitted of all charges and directed to be released unless required in any other case.

Date of Decision: 4th September 2025