The Delhi High Court acquitted Feroz Ahmad in a 2000 robbery and shooting case, stressing that criminal law demands certainty of identity. Judges held evidence unreliable, citing poor visibility and witnesses’ eyesight, warning courts cannot punish ghosts or persons.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has acquitted a man, Feroz Ahmad, who was convicted in a robbery and shooting case dating back to 2000. The court emphasized that criminal law requires certainty regarding the identity of the offender; it cannot hold a “ghost” or an innocent person accountable for a crime. The judgment noted that the evidence presented was insufficient, as witnesses admitted to the poor visibility at the scene and acknowledged their own vision problems.
Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav stated,
“In criminal law, as in other spheres of society, identity rather identification is of utmost importance to so many aspects of life, as also to fasten the liability. Offence took place, noticed but then what? So unless, the culprit is not brought to book no purpose would be served. And how to do that unless certainty about the complicity of assailant is there.
There comes identification and without it criminal law would be of no use. You can’t hold a ghost responsible for the offences, neither can a person who is not responsible.”
The case stemmed from an incident on June 28, 2000, in Naraina Industrial Area Phase-II, where the complainant, Ajay Jain, was shot and robbed of a briefcase that allegedly contained Rs 20,000. Ahmad was later arrested in a separate Arms Act case, and a disclosure statement purportedly led to the recovery of the stolen briefcase from his jhuggi.
A trial court convicted him under Sections 394/34 and 397 of the IPC, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. However, the High Court determined that the prosecution failed to prove Ahmad’s identity beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court pointed out that the incident occurred at night, with Jain admitting the limited visibility and stating he could only see “dim faces.” He expressed uncertainty about identifying Ahmad as one of the assailants, further citing his vision problems.
The second victim, Mukesh Gupta, clearly stated he did not see the assailants at all. Given these circumstances, the court found the identification made for the first time in court, without a reliable Test Identification Parade, to be insufficient for a conviction.
Ahmad had refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade (TIP), claiming he had been shown to Jain previously and that his photographs had been taken. The court noted that Ahmad was presented in courtwithout being obscured, and Jain was present in the courthouse on that day, raising concerns about the identification’s fairness.
Furthermore, the court expressed doubts regarding the recovery of the briefcase nearly eight months post-incident. Police witnesses provided conflicting accounts of the timing and method of the recovery, and no independent public witness was included despite prior notice.
The briefcase allegedly held visiting cards and documents associated with Jain, yet the court viewed it as implausible that such items would be kept by Ahmad for an extended period.
Cumulatively, various inconsistencies, including discrepancies in the timing of the FIR and the presence of an individual named Navneet who was mentioned in the medico-legal certificate as accompanying Jain to the hospital but was denied by Jain further eroded the prosecution’s case.
The court concluded that, when considered altogether, these minor discrepancies significantly weakened the prosecution’s credibility.
The bench stated,
“It is apparent that it would be unsafe to tie the incident of the robbery with the Appellant. Especially that the appellant has not been identified in a clear and cogent manner, the recovery is doubtful, there is a mix up in the recording of the FIR giving scope for manipulation, and there is a mysterious individual Navneet who has emerged out of nowhere though insignificantly but in the entirety of the case, adds to the doubtful circumstances. It appears that the case of the prosecution against the accused is not credible enough. As such it would not be appropriate and safe to hold the Appellant guilty of the offence of robbery,”
Thus, the court ruled that without clear and convincing identification, it would not be safe to uphold the conviction, extending the benefit of doubt and acquitting Ahmad of all charges.
Case Title: Feroz Ahmad v. State Of NCT Of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1084)