New Delhi, March 30 – The Delhi High Court has acquitted two men who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, stating that the prosecution's case was based on a single, unreliable eyewitness whose testimony was inconsistent and lacked credibility.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Madhu Jain allowed the appeals filed by Virender, also known as Bablu, and Vikas, also known as Tinku, against their conviction by a Rohini court, which had sentenced them to life imprisonment under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Virender was also convicted under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.
Setting aside the conviction, the Delhi High Court said that the prosecution had "failed to prove the charges against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt" and ordered their release.
According to the prosecution, the victim was attacked by two men on a motorcycle, with the pillion rider allegedly firing at him from close range, resulting in his death due to injuries to the head and brain.
The trial court primarily relied on the testimony of a single eyewitness, who claimed to have seen the accused firing at the deceased while riding a motorcycle.
However, the Delhi High Court found serious flaws in the eyewitness's testimony and remarked that his behavior was inconsistent with normal human behavior.
"A careful and independent scrutiny of the testimony of PW-18 reveals material inconsistencies, improbabilities, and conduct contrary to normal human behavior, raising doubts about the presence of PW-18 during the incident," the Justice Singh-led bench observed.
The order stated that while PW-18 claimed to have taken the injured to the hospital and remained present, another key witness (PW-12), who admittedly accompanied the victim to the hospital, did not even acknowledge his presence.
The Delhi High Court also expressed doubts about the identification of the accused, highlighting that the eyewitness claimed to have identified them by chance in the court premises without any prior Test Identification Parade (TIP).
"The identification of the accused in police custody, without any prior TIP, and that too allegedly by chance in the court complex, casts serious doubt on the credibility of this part of the prosecution case," it said.
The bench further found the prosecution's claim of motive weak, observing that although a monetary dispute was alleged, no prior complaint was filed despite the seriousness of the alleged threat.
Relying on established principles of criminal law, the Delhi High Court reiterated that suspicion cannot substitute proof and that a conviction based on a single eyewitness requires the testimony to be entirely reliable.
"In our considered opinion, the prosecution's case primarily rests on the testimony of PW-18, whose version is inconsistent and unreliable. His testimony lacks credibility and cannot be the sole basis for a conviction," the judgment stated.
Allowing the appeals, the Delhi High Court overturned the conviction and sentence, acquitted both accused of all charges, and directed that they be released immediately, if not required in any other case.
