A Delhi court acquitted a man in a 2016 robbery case after the complainant failed to identify him in a crucial identification parade, raising serious doubts about his involvement and leading to the overturning of his conviction.
A court here has acquitted a man in a 2016 robbery case, holding that his involvement in the case was under "serious doubt" as the complainant had failed to identify him during a test identification parade (TIP) conducted by police.
Additional Sessions Judge Pawan Kumar set aside the conviction and three-year sentence awarded to Rahul Sharma by a trial court in a case registered under sections 392 (robbery) and 394 (voluntarily causing hurt during robbery) read with 34 (common intention) of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code.
According to the prosecution, the incident took place on August 5, 2016, when complainant Atul Goel was allegedly robbed of Rs 1.5 lakh at gunpoint outside his residence. He had claimed that one assailant fired at him while another hit him on the head before fleeing with his cash-filled bag.
In the TIP of accused persons conducted shortly after the incident, Goel correctly identified co-accused Zahid but failed to identify Sharma.
The trial court had convicted Sharma under sections 394/34 and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment along with fine of Rs 25,000.
Allowing the appeal, the sessions court noted that the complainant had failed to identify Sharma during the TIP, though he later identified him during trial.
The court held that while identification of the accused in court at the time of deposition is a substantive piece of evidence, the accused's identification for the first time in court without corroboration by prior identification proceedings, has no value.
The judge observed that prior successful identification was crucial as identifying the accused for the first time in the courtroom when the accused is a stranger and after considerable time has passed since the incident makes it a "weak piece of evidence". The court also noted that Sharma was never named in the FIR.
"When the complainant could not identify the appellant in the TIP proceedings after 11 days of the incident, when his memory and observation qua incident was fresh in his mind, it appears to be highly improbable that he has correctly identified the accused in the court after around eight months of the incident. The identification for the first time in the court, in the light of failed TIP proceedings, has little value," the court said.
"The identity of the appellant is under serious doubt. The judgment of conviction of the appellant on the basis of doubtful evidence... cannot be upheld. The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence is hereby set aside," the court said as it acquitted Sharma of all offences.