Presumption of Innocence Doubled: Delhi HC Refuses to Overturn Acquittal Amid 'Unreliable' Witness Testimony

The Delhi High Court has reinforced the sanctity of acquittal orders, ruling that the prosecution's failure to provide credible evidence or independent witnesses creates a 'double presumption of innocence' that appellate courts must not lightly disturb. Upholding a trial court's decision to acquit two men accused of a 2005 shooting, the Court emphasized that suspicion, regardless of its gravity, cannot substitute for legal proof in criminal jurisprudence.

In a criminal appeal filed by the State, a bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan examined the legality of a 2017 acquittal order concerning a daylight shooting incident. The State challenged the acquittal of two individuals who were allegedly identified by an injured property dealer, asserting that the trial court failed to appreciate the ocular and forensic evidence presented during the trial.

Key Takeaways

Double Presumption of Innocence

An acquittal by a trial court strengthens the accused's right to liberty, imposing a higher burden on the prosecution during the appeal stage to prove perversity.

Credibility of Injured Witnesses

Material improvements and contradictions in successive statements by an injured witness can render their entire testimony unreliable, necessitating independent corroboration.

Appellate Restraint in Acquittals

High Courts should not substitute their own views for those of the trial court if the lower court's finding is a 'plausible view' based on the record.

Integrity of Forensic Evidence

Interpolations or unexplained entries in forensic laboratory registers regarding the receipt of ammunition cast significant doubt on the entire ballistic report.

Judicial Analysis of Witness Reliability and Forensic Lapses

The Court scrutinized the testimony of the injured party, PW-2, noting that his version of the shooting evolved significantly across four different statements. Initially failing to name the assailants in the first medical record, the witness later introduced detailed allegations of extortion and past enmity. The Bench observed that such 'changing stands' and 'material particulars' contradictions made the testimony unsafe to rely upon. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of independent public witnesses despite the crime occurring in a busy commercial area, and highlighted suspicious entries in the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) registers concerning the test-fired cartridges.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is a well-settled principle in law that the Appellate Court is not to substitute its judgment, especially, in the case of an acquittal. When there is an acquittal, the Appellate Court should be reluctant in interfering with the same unless there is perversity in the judgment of the Trial Court... The suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot take place of proof. It is well settled proposition of law that when genesis and manner of the incident is in doubt, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt."

The Court has following directions:

"Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. Personal/Bail bond and surety of the Respondents are discharged."

Ratio

The Appellate Court’s power to review evidence in an appeal against acquittal is governed by the principle that interference is warranted only if the trial court's finding is 'perverse' or 'demonstrably unsustainable.' If the trial court's view is a 'plausible' one based on the evidence, the appellate court must respect the 'double presumption of innocence' and cannot overturn the acquittal merely because a different view of the facts is possible.

Background

The case originated from a shooting on January 12, 2005, where a property dealer was allegedly shot three times at his shop in New Kondli, Delhi. The prosecution alleged that the respondents attacked the victim due to a grudge involving a prior murder case. While the victim eventually identified the respondents, the trial court found his statements to be riddled with contradictions compared to his initial statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The defense highlighted that the first Medical Legal Certificate (MLC) recorded the assailants as 'unknown persons.' Citing precedents like Mohan v. State of Karnataka and Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda v. State of Gujarat ( "2024 SCC OnLine SC 523": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 83), the High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as the weapon of offense could not be definitively linked to the accused and the eyewitness testimonies lacked credibility.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRL.A. 461/2018 & CRL.M.A. 14242/2024
Case Title: The State Nct Of Delhi V. Rajender Singh & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP; Ms. Divya Yadav, Adv.; SI Pradeep Singh
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sakesh Kumar and Ms. Gitanjali N. Sharma Advs.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 5707