Supreme Court Acquits Accused Due to Unreliable Dock Identification and Defective Test Identification Parade (TIP) Proceedings
Case Name: Raj Kumar @ Bheema v. State of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2025 INSC 1322
Date of Judgment/Order: 17 November 2025
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta
Held: The Supreme Court held that the conviction could not be sustained as the prosecution’s case rested solely upon the delayed and unreliable dock identification made by the injured witness after more than eight years, without proper corroboration. The Court found serious procedural irregularities in the Test Identification Parade (TIP), contradictions in the witness’s statements, lack of independent proof connecting alleged recoveries with the crime, and absence of matching forensic evidence. Consequently, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, making the conviction unsafe.
Summary: In this case, the appellant had been convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of a senior citizen during a house break-in, based mainly on the identification made by the injured eyewitness, Smt. Indra Prabha Gulati. Her deposition was recorded through video conferencing more than eight and a half years after the incident. The Court noted material contradictions in her statements, her poor eyesight, absence of spectacles during deposition, and the fact that she admitted not having seen the assailants after the incident. Further, the prosecution’s claim of a TIP was disbelieved because records did not show that the witness ever attended such proceedings, nor was the accused kept “baparda” after arrest to preserve identity integrity. The recoveries allegedly made at the instance of the accused were also rejected due to absence of corroboration, non-identification by witnesses, and forensic reports showing no matching blood group. These cumulative infirmities destroyed the foundational evidence relied upon by the trial court and the High Court.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court, and acquitted the appellant of all charges. The Court directed that the appellant, who had already undergone nearly fifteen and a half years in custody, be released forthwith unless required in any other case. Pending applications were disposed of accordingly.