New Delhi, March 30, 2026
The Delhi High Court has acquitted two men who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, holding that the prosecution’s case rested on an unreliable sole eyewitness whose testimony suffered from material inconsistencies and did not inspire confidence.
A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Madhu Jain allowed the appeals filed by Virender alias Bablu and Vikas alias 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 the prosecution had “failed to prove the charges against the Appellants beyond reasonable doubt” and ordered their release.
As per the prosecution, the victim was attacked by two men on a motorcycle, with the pillion rider allegedly firing at him from close range, leading to his death due to cranio-cerebral injuries.
The trial court had relied primarily on the testimony of a solitary eyewitness, who claimed to have seen the accused fire at the deceased while riding a motorcycle.
However, the Delhi High Court found serious infirmities in the testimony of the eyewitness and remarked that his conduct was inconsistent with normal human behaviour.
“A careful and independent scrutiny of the testimony of PW-18 reveals material inconsistencies, improbabilities and conduct contrary to normal human behaviour, giving rise to doubts regarding the presence of PW-18 during the incident,” the Justice Singh-led Bench observed.
The order said 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 doubt over 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 coincidence 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 settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, the Delhi High Court reiterated that suspicion cannot substitute proof and that a conviction based on a sole eyewitness requires the testimony to be wholly reliable.
“In the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution’s case rests primarily on the testimony of PW-18, whose version is inconsistent and unreliable. His testimony does not inspire confidence and cannot be made the sole basis of conviction,” the judgment said.
Allowing the appeals, the Delhi High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted both accused of all charges, and directed that they be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.(Agency)
FOLLOW NOW
