-
by Admin
07 February 2026 2:03 AM
“Where the identity of the accused itself is doubtful, the conviction cannot be sustained” — In a strong reminder that criminal convictions cannot rest on conjecture or inconsistent testimony, the Delhi High Court set aside the conviction of Ravi Kumar Meena, who had been sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment for allegedly stabbing a man during a confrontation at Ram Leela Park, Nehru Nagar in July 2019.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that serious doubt existed regarding the identity of the accused, the investigation was flawed, and the evidence of key prosecution witnesses was riddled with contradictions — thereby making it unsafe to sustain the conviction under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder).
“The absolute burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt always rests on the prosecution. Where identity of the accused is in serious doubt, conviction cannot be maintained,” the Court stated, while extending the benefit of doubt to the appellant.
“He Was Identified by Police, Not by the Victim”: High Court Points to Unlawful Identification and Lack of Prior Acquaintance
The crux of the case rested on whether Ravi Kumar Meena was indeed the person who stabbed the injured witness, Anil Kumar, in a public park following a verbal altercation.
While the trial court had relied upon Anil’s testimony to convict, the High Court noted that both PW1 Anil (injured complainant) and PW2 Vishal (his brother and eyewitness) had categorically admitted in their cross-examinations that they had no prior acquaintance with the accused.
Crucially, PW1 admitted:
“I had no prior acquaintance with accused Ravi before the incident. I came to know the name of accused as Ravi from the police officials. I was shown a photograph of the accused at the Hospital.”
No Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted — a fundamental procedural safeguard when the accused is not previously known to the witnesses. Instead, the police merely showed a photograph of the accused at the hospital.
The Court found this method deeply problematic:
“Identification of the accused by showing a photograph at the hospital, in absence of prior acquaintance, is impermissible and renders the process fundamentally flawed.”
“The Recovery of Weapon Was a Farce” — Non-Recovery of Knife Weakens Prosecution’s Case
The High Court also strongly criticized the investigation, particularly the non-recovery of the weapon of offence — a knife that allegedly caused multiple stab injuries.
Despite the seriousness of the offence, the knife was never recovered, and no meaningful effort was made to secure it, either at the time of arrest (when the FIR was only under Section 324 IPC) or later, when Section 307 IPC was added following a medical opinion.
Justice Bansal Krishna observed:
“Even though the accused was granted bail in 2019, and later found in judicial custody in 2020, the police made no genuine effort to recover the weapon. The recovery process appears to have been reduced to a formality, initiated belatedly in 2021.”
The disclosure statement recorded at the time of arrest, which claimed the knife had been disposed of near a railway line, was given no evidentiary value by the Court:
“A disclosure statement without recovery cannot support a conviction.”
“The Police Made the Accused Known to the Victim — Not the Other Way Around”
Adding to the inconsistencies, the Court noted contradictions between the police witnesses and civilian witnesses regarding the circumstances of the arrest.
According to PW11 (Constable Surender) and PW16 (I.O. ASI Parveen Kumar), the accused was arrested on 15 July 2019, seven days after the incident, when the injured complainant spontaneously identified him on the street.
But this version found no support from PW1 and PW2 — who never deposed about such identification in court and instead reiterated that the police revealed the accused’s name and address to them.
The Court found this discrepancy telling:
“This mode of arrest is questionable. Neither the injured nor his brother deposed about witnessing or participating in such an identification. It seriously undermines the prosecution’s version.”
Moreover, even the site plan and arrest memos, which bore the signatures of the complainant, were disputed by PW1 — who claimed he was never taken to the scene of crime or present during arrest.
“Benefit of Doubt Is Not Charity — It’s a Constitutional Right”
Referring to the foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence, the High Court reiterated that:
“When two views are possible and the prosecution fails to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.”
This principle, rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution, found echo in the Court’s reliance on precedents such as:
Ramesh v. State of U.P., AIR 1992 SC 664
Jage Ram v. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366
Surinder Singh v. State (UT of Chandigarh), (2021) 20 SCC 24
Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh, (1988) 4 SCC 551
“Conviction Cannot Survive When Identity Is Not Proven” — Court Sets Aside Five-Year Sentence
While the trial court had convicted the appellant under Section 307 IPC, relying heavily on the oral testimony of the complainant and one eyewitness, the High Court found that the evidentiary foundation was too shaky to support a conviction for such a serious offence.
Justice Bansal Krishna concluded:
“In view of the aforesaid discussion, benefit of doubt has to be extended to the Appellant. Therefore, impugned Judgment of Conviction dated 17.12.2024 and Order on Sentence dated 07.01.2025 are set aside and Appellant is acquitted for the offence under Section 307 IPC.”
The criminal appeal was allowed, and all pending applications were accordingly disposed of.
Date of Decision: 4 February 2026
