Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Replace Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Acquits Robbery Accused After 22-Year Legal Battle

“Failure to Join Independent Witnesses in Robbery Investigation Throws Grave Doubt on Prosecution Case”, In a strongly worded judgment pronounced Delhi High Court acquitted four men convicted of robbery under Sections 395/34 of the Indian Penal Code, overturning a 2003 conviction that had sentenced them to three years of rigorous imprisonment.

Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, while allowing the criminal appeal, held that the prosecution’s case was riddled with contradictions, and that investigative lapses—especially the failure to associate public witnesses—fatally weakened the reliability of the case.

Observing that criminal jurisprudence demands more than conjecture, the Court declared:

“Suspicion, however strong or probable it may be, is no effective substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the charge of commission of a crime.”

The Court’s judgment reaffirms core principles of criminal law—that guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and that procedural fairness in investigation is not a mere formality, but a constitutional imperative.

The case arose from an incident dated August 23, 1991, when the complainant, a TSR driver named Ramesh Mandal, alleged that a group of youths stopped his auto near Air Force quarters and forcibly robbed him of cash, documents, wristwatch, and a purse, while threatening him at knifepoint.

Following the FIR, five individuals—Shekhar Pathak, Rajnish Grewal, Kishore, Naresh Kumar, and Rakesh Kumar—were arrested and allegedly found in possession of the stolen articles. A trial ensued, and in 2003, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted all under Section 395 IPC, sentencing them to three years’ rigorous imprisonment.

The present appeal, pending for over two decades, culminated in the acquittal of all four surviving appellants.

The Court identified three key failings in the prosecution’s case: contradictions in witness testimonies, failure to seal recovered items, and non-joining of public witnesses, all of which cumulatively created serious doubt as to the fairness and credibility of the investigation.

Referring to the evidentiary inconsistencies, the Court noted:

“There are grave and material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the place of arrest, timing of the arrest and the alleged recoveries.” [Para 13]

One glaring inconsistency was regarding the arrest of accused Shekhar Pathak. While PW-1 (the complainant) and PW-8 (the investigating officer) stated that he was arrested near Hanuman Mandir, other prosecution witnesses testified he was arrested from his residence at New Willingdon Camp.

In another contradiction, PW-4 claimed the stolen watch was recovered from Naresh Kumar, while PW-8 and seizure memos attributed it to Kishore. As the Court emphasized:

“These discrepancies go to the root of the matter, making the prosecution version doubtful and untrustworthy.” [Para 13.2]

Even more damaging was the failure to follow standard procedure regarding sealing of recovered articles. While PW-1 claimed the stolen items were sealed in his presence, PW-3, who turned hostile, flatly contradicted this. The Court found this omission unacceptable:

“There is no explanation by the prosecution as to why the alleged recovered articles were not sealed at the spot to prevent any manipulations.” [Para 13.4]

“Non-Joining of Public Witnesses Is Not a Mere Lapse—It Undermines the Investigation Itself”

One of the central pillars of the acquittal was the Court’s firm stance on the prosecution’s failure to associate independent witnesses, despite the arrests and recoveries allegedly taking place in populated localities.

Quoting from Pawan Kumar v. Delhi Administration (1987), the Court reminded:

“No effort was made to join any public witness even though number of them were present... this, by itself, is a circumstance throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of the knife from the person of the accused.” [Para 14]

In the present case, this omission was fatal. The Court observed that the prosecution offered no plausible explanation as to why no public witness was called, despite admitting that residents and bystanders were present during the arrests.

“This creates a doubt in the case of the prosecution as to the manner of arrest of the Appellants and the alleged recoveries from them.” [Para 14]

“Mere Suspicion or the Graveness of the Crime Cannot Justify Conviction”

In reaffirming the constitutional standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the Court cited Wahid v. State of NCT of Delhi, and Ashish Batham v. State of M.P., both of which emphasize that suspicion—no matter how compelling—is never a substitute for legal proof.

Quoting from Ashish Batham, the Court held:

“Realities or truth apart, the fundamental presumption in criminal law is the innocence of the accused... there is a long mental distance between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’.” [Para 16]

The Court also noted that even the prosecution's own witnesses—like PW-2 Amar Singh, who was allegedly informed about the robbery—failed to support the version of the complainant, further casting doubt on the prosecution’s case. [Para 15]

After conducting a thorough reappraisal of the evidence, the Court unequivocally concluded:

“The prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of offence constituting robbery falling under Sections 395/34 IPC against the Appellants.” [Para 18]

The conviction and sentence were set aside, the appeal was allowed, and the bail bonds of the appellants were cancelled. The Court also directed that a copy of the order be sent to the concerned jail and Trial Court authorities for compliance.

Date of Decision: August 11, 2025