The Supreme Court has acquitted a man sentenced to life imprisonment for the sexual assault of a five-year-old girl, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish his identity as the perpetrator beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that identification of the accused in court is substantive evidence, while a test identification parade serves only a corroborative function. With the victim admitting that police disclosed the accused's name before the parade, and no dock identification conducted despite the accused being present in court, the conviction could not stand. Contradictions in medical evidence regarding the age of injuries and the absence of DNA linkage further undermined the prosecution case.
Case Details
DHANRAJ vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN
2026 INSC 958
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
2026-09-07
Case Number
Crl.A. No.-000135-000135 - 2026
Bench
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Counsel
Pet: Namit Saxena
Res: Kartikeya Asthana
Frequently Asked Questions
A TIP is not substantive evidence; it is only corroborative in nature. The substantive evidence for establishing identity is the identification of the accused by the witness in court (dock identification). This principle was reaffirmed in Rameshwar Singh v. State of J&K and applied in the present judgment.
No. The Supreme Court held that where the accused is not named in the FIR, the victim admits police disclosed the name, and the prosecution relies solely on TIP identification, the absence of dock identification is a fatal flaw that demolishes the prosecution case.
When medical evidence shows injuries are older than the alleged incident date, it creates a material discrepancy going to the root of the prosecution case. In this case, the doctor opined injuries were 5-7 days old on examination dated 7th December 2016, making the alleged 5th December 2016 incident date impossible.
The prosecution is not required to establish its case by scientific evidence in every case where trustworthy direct evidence is available. However, where identification is doubtful and medical evidence contradictory, the absence of DNA profiling or serological evidence linking the accused to the crime becomes a significant factor in assessing reasonable doubt.
