Nasir Ahmad v. State of Delhi

13. As regards the second category of accused persons, Narender @ Kittu, Suresh Kumar @ Chuchu, Jagbir Singh @ Dhilla, Mohd. Nadir Khan and Nasir Ahmed were identified as falling in the same. It was opined that although the said accused persons had refused to join the TIP on account of them allegedly being shown to the witnesses at the police station, no complaint to this effect had been made to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at a prior stage. It was held that this story of them or their photographs having been shown to the witnesses was not borne out of the record and was an afterthought. It was highlighted that the said accused persons were also identified by PW-1/Vikram in the Court. Reliance was also placed on the testimony of PW-11/Jeet Ram@Jeetu who stated that he was called to the police station 15 days after the incident, at which point none of the accused persons had been arrested. Hence, it was opined that the participation of accused persons Narender @ Kittu, Suresh Kumar @ Chuchu, Jagbir Singh @ Dhilla, Mohd. Nadir Khan and Nasir Ahmed in the incident stood proved.

14. With regard to the third category of accused persons, it was opined that Devinder, Rakesh @ Raka and Harender Kumar @ Pandit were not identified in the TIP by the eye-witnesses. Inasmuch as the alleged injuries sustained by Devinder and Rakesh @ Raka were concerned, it was opined that the evidence on record was not enough to implicate them in the incident. Accordingly, these accused persons were acquitted.

15. Thereafter, the order on sentence dated 05.05.2003 was passed, imposing the sentences as have been noted hereinabove.

16. During the pendency of the appeals, the appeals of Narender @ Kittu and Nand Kishore @ Nandu stood abated vide order dated 20.11.2025. Similarly, the appeal filed by accused Jagbir Singh @ Dhilla also stood abated vide order dated 01.04.2014. Hence, before us are the appeals filed by Nasir Ahmed, Jagjit Singh, Mohd. Nadir Khan and Suresh Kumar @ Chuchu.

SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT (JAGJIT SINGH)

17. Mr. Hariharan, the learned senior counsel for the Appellant- Jagjit Singh, submits that the alleged incident in question can be divided in two parts; the first being the quarrel in the cinema hall; and the second being the fight in the basement of cinema hall, once the movie ended.

18. He submits that as far as the first part of the incident is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that the torchman in the cinema, that is, PW-6/Dayanand intervened and removed the three accused persons from the hall. PW-6/Dayanand in his testimony completely contradicts the said fact and states that no quarrel had taken place inside the cinema hall on the day of the incident. Hence, the sole public witness of the first part of the incident has not supported the case of the prosecution.

19. As far as the second part of the incident is concerned, the learned senior counsel submits that the same is alleged to have taken place in the basement parking area of the cinema hall after the movie ended, where a large number of people who watched the show would have gone to collect their vehicles. This, he submits, is corroborated by the testimonies of PW-1/Vikram, PW-2/Gianender and PW-11/Jeet Ram @ Jeetu. In such circumstances, clear attribution of roles becomes crucial which is lacking in the present case. He submits that despite the presence of multiple public witnesses, both, inside the cinema hall as well as in the basement, barring PW-6/Dayanand, no other public witness has been brought forth by the prosecution.

20. Placing reliance on the testimony of PW-9/Ct. Virpal Singh, he highlights that it is the case of the prosecution that the police reached the spot after the incident at around 12:10am. He submits that thereafter queries were made and eventually the statement of PW- 1/Vikram was recorded. He submits that pertinently, PW-1/Vikram did not give any description of the assailants at the time of first report. He submits that it is also the prosecution’s case that PW-1/Vikram had accompanied the police to the spot and assisted in the recovery of one phatta which had allegedly been used by the accused persons during the course of incident. He submits that this fact, however, is contradicted by the own testimony of PW-1/Vikram who has stated that no recovery was made at his instance.

21. He further submits that the genesis of the prosecution’s case is a mystery as it is to be based on ‘secret information’ that the accused persons were identified. He submits that there is not even a DD entry to this effect. He places reliance on the judgment dated 07.02.2024 of the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.6652/2014, titled Surender Singh v. The State of Haryana, to submit that in cases involving the receipt of secret tip-offs, it is important to examine the informants.

22. He further challenges the TIP, contending that the Appellant- Jagjit Singh was shown to the witnesses in police custody at a prior point of time. To this effect, he places reliance on the testimonies of PW-1/Vikram, PW-2/Gianender and PW-11/Jeet Ram@Jeetu. He submits that hence, the same cannot be admitted under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). He submits that the statement of PW-1/Vikram and PW-2/Gianender to this effect has been wrongly discarded by the learned Trial Court on basis of a vague statement of PW-11/Jeet Ram @ Jeetu.

23. He contends that the present case is one where the prosecution has failed to establish any motive, has led no cogent evidence as to why the Appellant-Jagjit Singh was arrested or how he was part of the unlawful assembly. He further states that the Appellant-Jagjit Singh was shown to the witnesses prior to TIP, thereby vitiating its evidentiary value, and that the alleged weapon recovery at the instance of the witness is also of no consequence.

SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE APPELLANT – NASIR AHMED AND SURESH KUMAR @ CHUCHU

24. The learned counsels for the Appellants- Nasir Ahmed and Suresh Kumar @ Chuchu adopt the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for Appellant-Jagjit Singh.

25. They further submit that inasmuch as these appellants are concerned, they were also shown to the witnesses at the police station prior to the TIP. They contend that owing to the same they refused to participate in the TIP and were placed in the second category of accused persons by the learned Trial Court. They submit that it is not the case of the prosecution that the witnesses were shown some other suspects whom they did not identify but identified the appellants.

26. They submit that the testimonies of the alleged eye-witnesses are riddled with contradictions.

27. They contend that there was a delay of around 8-9 months in the arrest of the appellants and no recovery has been made on the basis of their disclosure statements.

28. They contend that hence, there is no connection of appellants with the incident in question and they deserve to be acquitted.

SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT-MOHD.

NADIR KHAN

29. Ms. Vrinda Grover, the learned counsel for Appellant- Mohd. Nadir Khan adopts the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the Appellant-Jagjit Singh.

30. She further submits that the prosecution’s case rests on a perfunctory investigation, wherein even basic circumstances, such as, the movie playing in the cinema hall on the date of the incident, the concerned movie tickets and the relevant parking slips, have not been brought to light.

31. She submits that the alleged common objective of committing murder is inherently improbable. Placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Hawa Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana, (1993) Supp (2) SCC 527 and Naresh v. State of Haryana, (2023) 10 SCC 134, she submits that if motive is not proved, then the prosecution fails to prove the common object.

32. She submits that there is no explanation as to why the deceased was targeted. All the three eye-witnesses, that is, PW-1/Vikram, PW- 2/Gianender and PW-11/Jeet Ram@Jeetu have deposed that when the unlawful assembly was giving beatings, no one intervened and the accused persons left on their own. Had a common object of the unlawful assembly been to kill the four persons to avenge the dispute in the balcony, it belies logic why the unlawful assembly would leave the spot without inflicting more injuries on PW-1/Vikram, PW- 2/Gianender and PW-11/Jeet Ram@Jeetu.

33. She submits that in fact, as per the MLC’s of PW-1/Vikram (EX.PW-20/C) and of PW-2/Gianender (EX.PW-21/D), they sustained only simple injuries, whereas PW-11/Jeet Ram@Jeetu was not even required to be medically examined.

34. She further highlights that none of the witnesses have mentioned that the Appellant-Mohd. Nadir Khan inflicted any injury upon them, nor has any witness stated that he specifically was carrying any weapon. She submits that the disclosure statement of the Appellant-Mohd. Nadir Khan is inadmissible and cannot be resorted to as evidence of common intention. She submits that no new discovery of fact or material has resulted from the same.

35. She submits that the accused persons central to the prosecution’s story have been acquitted by the learned Trial Court. As per the case of the prosecution, it was accused Devinder, Nand Kishore @ Nandu and Jagjit Singh who initially quarrelled with the deceased in the balcony of Uphaar Cinema, and it was Devinder who went to Lado Sarai to bring his associates and form the unlawful assembly. However, Devinder has been acquitted by the learned Trial Court on account of his not being identified in the TIP proceedings. Further, it was the case of the prosecution that accused Harender Kumar @ Pandit had driven the bus which brought members of the unlawful assembly to the spot. He again has been acquitted. She submits that without these two persons, the entire story of the prosecution collapses as in such a circumstance, the alleged unlawful assembly itself could not have come into being. She submits that when the grain and chaff are inextricably interlinked and cannot be separated, the benefit of doubt must extend to all accused. Reliance in this regard, is placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Iqbal M. Shaikh & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 4 SCC 494 and Zainul v. The State of Bihar, 2025 INSC 1192.

36. She submits that there is no evidentiary basis of arrest of the Appellant-Mohd. Nadir Khan. It is solely based on the disclosure statement made by the appellant-Suresh Kumar @ Chuchu who was arrested on the basis of alleged secret information more than seven months after the date of the incident. There is no official record or DD entry regarding this alleged secret information. She places reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of MP, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 984 and Nagamma @ Nagarathna & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka, 2025 INSC 1135 to buttress her submission.

37. She further states that the identification of the Appellant-Mohd. Nadir Khan is highly improbable inasmuch as all three eye-witnesses in their testimony regarding the quarrel that took place inside the cinema hall, state that the theatre lights were not turned on during the same. They further state that they were attacked in the basement at midnight. She highlights that the site plan of the basement (Ex.PW- 16/B) does not mark any source of light.

38. With regard to the incident itself, she submits that the nature of beating described by PW-1/Vikram and PW-2/Gianender, further solidify her case. PW-1/Vikram states that he was hit on head by one person after which he sat on the floor looking at the ground. PW- 2/Gianender also states that he covered his head with his hands after being hit. They testified that they could not identify who gave the beatings. Furthermore, all three eye-witnesses have identified different people as being part of the first quarrel, which further deals a fatal blow to the case of the prosecution. She highlights that as none of the witnesses in their Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements gave any description or identifying features of the assailants, their identification of the Appellant-Mohd. Nadir Khan in Court is, therefore, unworthy of any credence.

39. She submits that the Appellant-Mohd. Nadir Khan was shown to the witnesses prior to the TIP which is why he refused to participate in the same. She submits that the dock identification of the Appellant by PW-1/Vikram is not reliable as the learned Trial Court cannot cherry pick which part of PW-1/Vikram’s testimony qua the appellant is believable. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Shaikh Umar Ahmed Shaikh and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 5 SCC 103, Gireesan Nair & Ors. v. State of Kerala, (2023) 1 SCC 180, Kamal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 933, Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1439 and Raj Kumar @ Bheema v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025 INSC 1322.

40. She submits that the learned Trial Court has arbitrarily disbelieved the testimonies of PW-1/Vikram and PW-2/Gianender in so far as they testified to having seen the Appellant-Mohd. Nadir Khan prior to the TIP, while believing the testimony of PW-11/Jeet Ram@Jeetu to conclude that the Appellant-Mohd. Nadir Khan was not shown to the witnesses prior to the TIP. This conclusion was founded on PW-11/Jeet Ram@Jeetu’s statement that he was called to the police station 15 days after the incident, that is, much before any of the accused were arrested. She contends that such reliance is misplaced, particularly when PW-11/Jeet Ram@Jeetu’s testimony is at variance with that of the other two ocular witnesses. His criminal record is also questionable; he was not present for the TIP; and he neither accompanied the deceased to the hospital nor sustained any injury, but instead disappeared into the crowd immediately after the incident took place. She places reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Arvind Kumar & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 16 SCC 732, Balaram v. State of MP, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1468 and Mehatar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 319, to submit that, as a rule of caution, the Court must reject evidence of a wholly unreliable witness.

41. She submits that the formula adopted by the learned Trial Court in categorising the accused persons in three groups, and solely on the result of the TIP, handing out conviction and acquittals, is alien to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence.

42. She submits that the allegation that the accused persons were armed with weapons such as swords, as testified by PW-11/Jeet Ram@ Jeetu, also does not stand corroborated. The alleged recovery from the spot is limited to three wooden phattas and one iron angle. Additionally, these objects have also not been linked to the crime. She highlights that the presence of such items in a basement is not unusual. The blood found on the objects was not sent for DNA profiling in order to confirm whether it belonged to the deceased. The FSL reports (EX.PX and EX.PY) are inconclusive insofar as they only test for blood type, and that the mere detection of group ‘A’ blood type, does not lead to the irresistible conclusion that the blood belonged to the deceased. Furthermore, no fingerprints were lifted from the said objects in order to connect them with the accused.

43. She submits that there is no material or independent corroboration of the prosecution’s case. She places reliance on the testimony of PW-16/SI Vinay Kumar to highlight that upon reaching the spot, he could not get any information from public witnesses as to between whom the quarrel took place and why.

44. She submits that, therefore, the Appellant-Mohd. Nadir Khan deserves to be acquitted.

SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

45. Mr. Aman Usman, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that there are no infirmities in the impugned orders passed by the learned Trial Court.

46. He submits that there is enough evidence to establish the guilt of the appellants. He submits that, therefore, the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court is well-founded, based on a sound appreciation of evidence and settled principles of law, and calls for no interference by this Court.

47. He highlights that PW-11/Jeet Ram @Jeetu has testified to the fact that the witnesses were called to the police station 15 days after the incident took place, at which point none of the accused persons had been arrested.

48. He submits that PW-1/Vikram and PW-2/Gianender have correctly identified the appellants as the assailants and as being part of the unlawful assembly that caused injuries to them and also the deceased. He submits that their testimony is sufficient to convict the appellants.

49. He submits that the appellants Nasir Ahmed, Mohd. Nadir Khan and Suresh Kumar @ Chuchu had denied taking part in the TIP on false pretext of being shown to the witnesses. He submits that the learned Trial Court had minutely examined this stand of the appellants and has rightly rejected it and thereafter drawn an adverse inference against these appellants. He submits that the said approach of the learned Trial Court cannot be faulted.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

50. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

51. The case of the prosecution rests on the testimonies of PW- 1/Vikram, PW-2/Gianender and PW-11/Jeet Ram @Jeetu, the TIP, as also on other circumstantial evidences such as the alleged recoveries made during the course of the investigation and the common motive of the unlawful assembly.

52. The incident in question can be divided in two parts; the first being the quarrel in the cinema hall; and the second being the fight in the basement of cinema hall once the movie ended.

53. The Supreme Court in Zainul (supra) explained the rule of prudence to be followed in convicting members of an unlawful assembly, and further opined that in cases where the prosecution’s case against the accused persons is so inextricably mixed up that it is not possible to sever one from the other, the benefit of doubt must extend to all accused persons. We quote from the said judgment as under:

54. Applying the aforementioned principles to the facts of the present case, we find that in so far as the first part of the incident is concerned, the torchman, that is, PW-6/Dayanand, who was also the sole public witness, has turned hostile and denied the occurrence of any quarrel inside the cinema hall. This denial is significant as the first part of the incident forms the basis of the prosecution’s theory on motive.

55. Furthermore, we find that PW-2/Gianender in his testimony states that a policeman assisted the torchman in escorting the miscreants out of the hall. Interestingly, no such officer has been examined as a witness.

56. Additionally, while it is the case of the prosecution that it was accused Devinder, Jagjit Singh and Nand Kishore @ Nandu who had the initial quarrel with the deceased and his friends, this fact is not corroborated by the testimonies of the eye-witnesses. While PW- 1/Vikram identifies accused Devinder and Jagjit Singh, PW- 2/Gianender identifies accused Mohd. Nadir Khan, Nasir Ahmed and Rakesh @ Raka, and PW-11/Jeet Ram @Jeetu, on the other hand, identifies accused Jagbir Singh, Nand Kishore @ Nandu and Nasir Ahmed, as the persons who had fought with them in the balcony of the cinema hall. This, itself casts a doubt on the identification of the persons who had fought with the deceased and the witnesses in the cinema hall over the seats, thereby creating a doubt on the very inception of the incident.

57. Furthermore, the deceased and his friends had admittedly gone to watch a night show in Uphaar Cinema and it is undisputed that when the quarrel took place, the hall was dark. This is admitted by the PW-11/Jeet Ram @Jeetu. The identification of the accused by them is therefore, doubtful, especially when taken in conjunction with their admission that they had not described the accused in their statements given to the police.

58. Coming to the second part of the incident, we would, at the outset, note that as per the prosecution, it was accused Devinder, who, after the quarrel, went to Lado Sarai to bring his associates. It was accused Harender who then drove a bus and brought members of the unlawful assembly to the spot. However, these accused persons have been acquitted by the learned Trial Court. This is almost fatal to the case of the prosecution and the benefit of doubt must be extended to all accused. Even though the case of the prosecution is based on the testimony of the alleged injured and the eye-witnesses, the circumstances must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The chain of such circumstances must not be broken and should be consistent with the case of the prosecution, leading to no other inference but the guilt of the accused. In the present case, the chain is broken when the alleged key participants are let off by the learned Trial Court and the judgment is accepted by the prosecution.

59. This is coupled with the fact that despite the presence of multiple public witnesses, including the parking attendant and a guard, in the parking, as testified by the PW-1/Vikram, PW-2/Gianender and PW-11/Jeet Ram @Jeetu, none of them have been examined. Though it is not necessary for the prosecution to multiply witnesses, however, at least the parking attendant and the guard present in the parking when the assault took place were material witnesses and their nonexamination casts a shadow of doubt on the case of the prosecution.

60. We now turn our attention to arrest of the accused persons. The incident is of 13-14th August 1996. It was a blind case, with no clue of the assailants. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24.04.1997, more than seven months after the date of the incident, PW-13/K.P. Malik, who is posted at ICPP Pushp Vihar, P.S. Malviya Nagar, received secret information regarding the involvement of appellant Suresh Kumar @ Chuchu in the incident. Curiously, the incident and the FIR is of Police Station Haus Khas. There is no explanation why he did not pass on this information to P.S. Haus Khas or involve any police official from the said Police Station in making the arrest. On what basis he even suspected that the accused are involved in the incident in question and who was this secret informant, has remained a mystery.

61. In Surender Singh (supra), the Supreme Court held that the non-examination of the secret informant may cast a doubt on the case of the prosecution. We quote from the judgment as below:

62. The most important, and one may dare say, the only basis on which the learned Trial Court has proceeded to convict the appellants herein, is the TIP. As noted hereinabove, the learned Trial Court divided the accused into three parts; (i) those who were correctly identified in the TIP proceedings conducted by the learned M.M.; (ii) those who refused to join the TIP; and (iii) those who could not be identified in the TIP. The learned Trial Court has gone on to convict the accused falling in the first two categories, while acquitting the accused falling in the third category. Therefore, we say that TIP gains the most important significance in the case.

63. As far as the law concerning TIP is concerned, it is no longer res integra that the accused persons must not be shown to the witnesses prior to the TIP being conducted. In Gireesan Nair (supra), the Supreme Court opined that in cases where the accused is shown at a prior point of time, not only is the TIP inadmissible, so is the identification of the accused persons in Court by the witness. It was held as under: “31. In cases where the witnesses have had ample opportunity to see the accused before the identification parade is held, it may adversely affect the trial. It is the duty of the prosecution to establish before the court that right from the day of arrest, the accused was kept “baparda” to rule out the possibility of their face being seen while in police custody. If the witnesses had the opportunity to see the accused before the TIP, be it in any form i.e. physically, through photographs or via media (newspapers, television, etc.), the evidence of the TIP is not admissible as a valid piece of evidence (Lal Singh v. State of U.P. [Lal Singh v. State of U.P., (2003) 12 SCC 554:

32. If identification in the TIP has taken place after the accused is shown to the witnesses, then not only is the evidence of TIP inadmissible, even an identification in a court during trial is meaningless (Sk. Umar Ahmed Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra [Sk. Umar Ahmed Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 5 SCC 103: 1998 SCC (Cri) 1276] ). Even a TIP conducted in the presence of a police officer is inadmissible in light of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Chunthuram v. State of Chhattisgarh [Chunthuram v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2020) 10 SCC 733: (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 9] and Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay [Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of Bombay, (1955) 1 SCR 903: AIR 1955 SC 104] ).”

64. In Shaikh Umar (supra), the Supreme Court held as under:

65. In Kattavellai (supra), the Supreme Court held as under:

66. In Raj Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court held that adverse inference against accused persons for non-participation in TIP cannot support the theory of identification, when the authenticity of the proceedings themselves is under serious doubt. We quote from the judgment as under:

67. Applying the aforementioned principles to the facts of the present appeals, we find that the accused persons, namely Suresh Kumar @ Chuchu, Jagbir Singh @Dhilla, Mohd. Nadir Khan and Nasir Ahmed were shown to PW-1/Vikram and PW-2/Gianender at the Police Post immediately on their arrest. Resultantly, the subsequent refusal of Appellants- Nasir Ahmed, Mohd. Nadir Khan, and Suresh Kumar @ Chuchu, to participate in the TIP, cannot be accorded evidentiary value. Further, the dock identification of the accused persons by the eye-witnesses also becomes inadmissible.

68. We find merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the Appellant-Mohd. Nadir Khan, that the mere statement of PW- 11/Jeet Ram @ Jeetu that he was called to the police station 15 days after the incident, is not enough to disbelieve that the appellants were not shown to the witnesses prior to the TIP. The statements of PW- 1/Vikram and PW-2/Gianender are categorical on the appellants being shown to them at the Police Post on their arrest. In our view, therefore, the learned Trial Court has committed a grave error in convicting these appellants only on the basis of their refusal to take part in the TIP and on their identification by these witnesses in Court.

69. However, as far as the appellant-Jagjit Singh is concerned, the above may not hold true inasmuch as he had surrendered in Court later on 20.05.1997, therefore, was not the one who had been shown to the witnesses at the Police Post. He had also participated in the TIP, wherein he was identified by PW-1/Vikram. At the same time, in our opinion, such identification would not be sufficient to convict the appellant-Jagjit Singh. In this regard, as we have noted hereinabove, PW-2/Gianender had not identified appellant-Jagjit Singh in the TIP, though it is the case of the prosecution that he was one of the three with whom the initial fight in the hall had taken place. There is also an inconsistency and contradiction between the case set up by the prosecution and one deposed by PW-1/Vikram, PW-2/Gianender and PW-11/Jeet Ram @ Jeetu, on who amongst the accused were present when the initial fight took place. While, it is the case of the prosecution that the initial quarrel over seats took place between the deceased and PW-1/Vikram and PW-2/Gianender, on one side, and Devinder, Jagjit Singh and Nand Kishore @ Nandu, on the other, PW- 2/Gianender states that the initial fight was between their group and Mohd. Nadir Khan, Nasir Ahmed and Rakesh @ Raka from the accused. PW-11/Jeet Ram @ Jeetu states that the initial fight took place between their group and accused Jagbir Singh, Nand Kishore @ Nandu and Nasir Ahmed.

70. PW-1/Vikram also stated that appellant Jagjit Singh had given injuries with a thick wooden phatta, however, in his crossexamination, he admits that he had not told this to the police.

71. PW-1/Vikram had also identified Devinder in his deposition as the person with whom the initial fight had taken place, however, the learned Trial Court has found this to be insufficient to convict Devinder, only because Devinder had not been identified in the TIP. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant-Jagjit Singh is only because of his identification by PW-1/Vikram in the TIP. The TIP of other accused has not been found by us to be meeting the evidentiary yardstick, inasmuch as it is evident on record that they were shown to the witnesses at the time of their arrest, making their TIP and later identification in Court as without any substance. This is coupled with the fact that none of the witnesses in their Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements gave any description or identifying features of the assailants.

72. In such a scenario, in our opinion, merely on the identification of the appellant-Jagjit Singh in the TIP, that too, by only one of the witnesses, does not meet the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

73. In Iqbal & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 623, the Supreme Court warned that the TIP identification is not substantive evidence and conviction cannot be based solely on the identification of the accused by the witnesses in the TIP. The prosecution has to adduce substantive evidence by establishing incriminating evidence connecting the accused with the crime.

74. Basis the above, we find that the prosecution had been unable to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants are entitled to be accorded the benefit of doubt. The learned Trial Court has erred in convicting the appellants.

75. The impugned orders dated 01.05.2003 and 05.05.2003 are, therefore, set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the Charges against them. Their personal bonds and surety are also discharged.

76. The appeals are allowed in the above terms.

77. A copy of this judgment be communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent as also to the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance and information.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J RAVINDER DUDEJA, J MAY 14, 2026