Headnotes
A five-year-old girl went missing in Ajmer, Rajasthan in December 2016 and was found bleeding from her private parts. The accused was arrested nearly two months later and identified in a Test Identification Parade, leading to his conviction and life sentence by the Special POCSO Court. He remained in custody for more than nine years before the Supreme Court set aside his conviction.
Full Judgment Text
FACTS:
A five-year-old girl went missing on December 5, 2016 while attending a family function in Ajmer, Rajasthan. She was later found and brought home by two persons, and her mother noticed she was bleeding from her private parts. An FIR was registered on December 7, 2016 against an unknown person.
The appellant, Dhanraj, was arrested nearly two months later, on February 5, 2017. During investigation, the victim identified him in a Test Identification Parade (TIP). He was subsequently convicted by the Special Judge, POCSO, Ajmer, and sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 376 and 376(2)(i)(j) of the Indian Penal Code. He remained in custody for more than nine years pending his appeal.
COURT'S ANALYSIS:
The Supreme Court examined the trial record and found that, critically, the child victim did not identify the accused when she deposited before the trial court during the trial itself, even though Dhanraj was present in court at the time.
The Court held that a Test Identification Parade conducted during investigation is not substantive evidence of a person's identity. Its purpose, the Court explained, is only to test a witness's ability to recognise a person allegedly seen during the incident and to lend corroboration to an identification subsequently made before the court — it cannot itself substitute for an in-court identification.
Given the absence of any identification of the accused by the victim during trial, the Court held that the prosecution's case suffered a fatal deficiency going to the very root of the conviction.
HOLDING:
The Supreme Court set aside Dhanraj's conviction and life sentence and acquitted him, after he had spent more than nine years in custody.
Source: LiveLaw, "'Victim Didn't Identify Accused In Court' : Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted For Rape Of 5-Year-Old," September 8, 2026.
A five-year-old girl went missing on December 5, 2016 while attending a family function in Ajmer, Rajasthan. She was later found and brought home by two persons, and her mother noticed she was bleeding from her private parts. An FIR was registered on December 7, 2016 against an unknown person.
The appellant, Dhanraj, was arrested nearly two months later, on February 5, 2017. During investigation, the victim identified him in a Test Identification Parade (TIP). He was subsequently convicted by the Special Judge, POCSO, Ajmer, and sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 376 and 376(2)(i)(j) of the Indian Penal Code. He remained in custody for more than nine years pending his appeal.
COURT'S ANALYSIS:
The Supreme Court examined the trial record and found that, critically, the child victim did not identify the accused when she deposited before the trial court during the trial itself, even though Dhanraj was present in court at the time.
The Court held that a Test Identification Parade conducted during investigation is not substantive evidence of a person's identity. Its purpose, the Court explained, is only to test a witness's ability to recognise a person allegedly seen during the incident and to lend corroboration to an identification subsequently made before the court — it cannot itself substitute for an in-court identification.
Given the absence of any identification of the accused by the victim during trial, the Court held that the prosecution's case suffered a fatal deficiency going to the very root of the conviction.
HOLDING:
The Supreme Court set aside Dhanraj's conviction and life sentence and acquitted him, after he had spent more than nine years in custody.
Source: LiveLaw, "'Victim Didn't Identify Accused In Court' : Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted For Rape Of 5-Year-Old," September 8, 2026.
Cases Cited & References
- 1. 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 906