No Robbery Allegation in DD Entries or MLC—Only Quarrel Noted: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Robbery Case Over Doubts in Identification and Recovery

“Appellate Court Must Be Slow to Disturb Acquittal—Prosecution’s Case Built on Shaky Identification and Unsealed Recoveries, Fails Legal Scrutiny”, Delhi High Court dismissed a criminal appeal filed by the State under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), affirming the acquittal of Suresh Daniel, accused in a robbery and assault case, citing glaring procedural lapses, unreliable identification, and failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that the Trial Court's acquittal was a possible and reasonable view, invoking the settled principle of double presumption of innocence after acquittal.

The Court observed: “The appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal... the presumption of innocence does not get weakened but only strengthened.”

The appeal arose from the Trial Court’s judgment dated 31.01.2015 in State v. Ajay Daniel & Anr., Sessions Case No. 48/14 (arising out of FIR No. 129/2013, PS Vasant Vihar), wherein both accused were acquitted under Sections 394, 397, 411, and 34 IPC.

“Delayed and Tainted Identification Cannot Be the Basis of Conviction”

The prosecution case revolved around the testimony of complainant Uday Menon, who alleged that on 12.04.2013, while returning home late at night, he was stopped, beaten, and robbed by two assailants—one of whom stabbed him with a Khukhri, while the other allegedly took his wallet.

However, the High Court found serious deficiencies in the identification process:

“The complainant identified the accused more than a month after their arrest, during a casual encounter at Patiala House Courts, not through a Test Identification Parade (TIP)... this identification was vitiated and lacked evidentiary value.”

Though the prosecution claimed that a TIP was offered within five days of arrest, both accused refused TIP, asserting that they had been shown to the complainant at the police station, rendering the process meaningless. The Court held such circumstances compromised the probative value of the subsequent in-court identification.

“Unsealed Recovery of Wallet and ID Cards Undermines Prosecution's Credibility”

The investigation led to the alleged recovery of Rs. 600, the complainant’s PAN card and voter ID, and a Khukhri, allegedly used in the assault. However, these items were not sealed, and no forensic examination was conducted. The Investigating Officer admitted that:

“The purse and cards were never sealed and the recovery was in open condition.”

Further, the IO conceded that there was no way to link the currency notes recovered to the complainant, and no effort was made to match fingerprints. The Court observed that such casual recovery procedures seriously diluted the reliability of evidence.

“Contradictions in Prosecution’s Version and Unchallenged Eyewitness Testimony in Defence”

A major blow to the prosecution’s case came from Defence Witness No. 6, Kumar Peter, a neighbor and eyewitness who stated that:

“The complainant had a quarrel with 3-4 unknown persons and the accused were not present at the spot.”

Critically, the prosecution did not cross-examine DW6, and his testimony remained unchallenged. Additionally, contemporaneous records — Daily Diary entries (DD Nos. 69A & 3A) and the MLC (medico-legal certificate) — all recorded within hours of the incident, did not mention robbery, only a quarrel or assault.

The Court held: “These inconsistencies cast serious doubt on the prosecution story, especially when the complainant himself lived within 50-60 yards of the accused but never mentioned knowing them earlier.”

“No Illegality or Perversity in Trial Court's Acquittal—Double Presumption Applies”

Reiterating the binding precedent of the Supreme Court in Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala (2022) 8 SCC 440, the Court stressed that an acquittal leads to a reinforced presumption of innocence, and any interference by the appellate court must only occur in the face of perverse or illegal findings, which were absent here.

Justice Ohri quoted: “If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.”

The Court also relied on Anwar Ali v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) 10 SCC 166 and Babu v. State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189, reiterating that acquittals deserve high deference in appellate review, particularly when no perversity or gross misappreciation of evidence is shown.

Acquittal Upheld, Appeal Dismissed

The High Court ultimately held that the prosecution failed to discharge the burden of proof, and the Trial Court’s acquittal of respondent No.2 (Suresh Daniel) did not warrant interference. The proceedings against respondent No.1 (Ajay Daniel) had abated due to his death during appeal.

“Considering the entire facts and circumstances and the prevailing position in law, I find no reason to take a different view from the Trial Court and uphold the acquittal of respondent No.2.”

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2017 filed by the State of NCT of Delhi was dismissed.

Date of Decision: 01 September 2025