3 months ago
1
The Delhi High Court has acquitted a antheral convicted successful a 2000 robbery case, holding that recognition of the culprit is cardinal to transgression instrumentality and that the prosecution failed to beryllium its lawsuit beyond a tenable doubt, observing that “you can’t clasp a shade liable for offences”.
The appellant, Feroz Ahmad, had been convicted by a proceedings tribunal and sentenced to 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment for the robbery that took spot connected June 28, 2000, successful the parking country of Naraina Industrial Area Phase-II.
The lawsuit was registered astatine Naraina constabulary station. A disclosure connection successful different lawsuit allegedly led to the betterment of a briefcase from the Mr. Ahmad’s jhuggi connected February 12, 2001 – astir 8 months aft the incident. The briefcase was said to beryllium the stolen property.
Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav, successful the judgement delivered connected February 10, noted that the prosecution’s lawsuit suffered from superior doubts regarding identification. It took into relationship that Mr Ajay Jain, whose briefcase was robbed, admitted successful his grounds that determination was acheronian astatine the spot and that helium could spot lone the dim faces of the assailants.
He besides stated that helium had definite vision-related issues and was unsure of the appellant’s identity.
The tribunal observed that the victims had lone a little accidental to spot the attackers and that the incidental occurred astir 8.00-8.30 p.m., erstwhile it was already dark. In specified circumstances, and successful airy of the complainant’s uncertainty, determination was “practically nary evidence” linking Mr. Ahmad to the crime.
The Bench besides recovered the alleged betterment of the briefcase suspect. It noted that the briefcase reportedly contained visiting cards and documents straight connected to the complainant.
Calling it contrary to “common sense, logic and crushed of a reasonably prudent man,” the tribunal questioned wherefore a transgression would clasp incriminating documents for 8 months, particularly erstwhile they were of nary worth to him. The tribunal held that the betterment itself appeared doubtful.
Holding that the prosecution’s lawsuit was not credible capable to prolong a condemnation for robbery, the High Court ruled that it would not beryllium harmless oregon due to uphold the conviction. Allowing the appeal, the tribunal granted the appellant the payment of the uncertainty and acquitted him of each charges.
