Voices. Verdicts. Vision

Voices. Verdicts. Vision

Delhi High Court Acquits Robbery Convicts, Flags Contradictions in Witness Testimonies and Lapses in Investigation

Shekhar Pathak & Others v. State | Decided on August 11, 2025

Delhi HC Acquittal

The Delhi High Court has allowed a criminal appeal and acquitted all four appellants of charges under Sections 395/34 IPC, setting aside their conviction and three-year rigorous imprisonment sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts. Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in light of material contradictions and procedural lapses during investigation.

The case arose from a complaint by TSR driver, who initially stated that five to six boys near airport quarters robbed him of ₹800–900 and a wristwatch at knifepoint, but later testified that only five boys were involved. The appellants were subsequently arrested and various items including a knife, purse, driving licence, wristwatch, and ₹300 were allegedly recovered.

On review of the evidence, the Court found significant inconsistencies: contradictory accounts about the place and timing of arrests, conflicting statements on which accused possessed the wristwatch, and discrepancies over the recovery of ₹300. Witnesses also differed on whether the seized articles were sealed, with seizure memos showing no sealing at the spot and no explanation offered by the prosecution. Moreover, no public witnesses were joined in the investigation despite their availability, a lapse contrary to the principle laid down in Pawan Kumar v. Delhi Administration (1987) CC 585 DHC.

Justice Gupta noted that these contradictions and omissions cast grave doubt on the prosecution’s version. Relying on Ashish Batham v. State of M.P. (2002) 7 SCC 317, the Court reiterated that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the appeals were allowed, the conviction and sentence under Sections 395/34 IPC were set aside, and all appellants were acquitted.


Appearances:

For Appellant No. 1: Ms. Tanya Agarwal, Advocate

For Appellants No. 2, 3 & 4: Mr. Tom Joseph and Ms. Arya Krishnan, Advocates

For the State: Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP with Inspector Sunil Kumar, SI Yashwant Kumar, and SI Kamal, PS Tughlak Road

PDF Icon

Shekhar Pathak & Others v. State

Preview PDF

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *