In criminal trials, defence counsel often rely on a plea of improbability—an argument that the accused’s involvement in the crime is unlikely due to age, health, circumstances, or other external improbabilities. But how much weight does such a plea carry when eyewitness accounts are strong, consistent, and supported by corroborative evidence?
The recent Supreme Court judgment in Hakim v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (2025 INSC 728) revisits this question with clarity. The Court emphasized that the plea of improbability cannot override cogent eyewitness testimonies and concurrent judicial findings supported by evidence.
This article delves into the ruling, legal standards, and broader implications of such pleas in criminal jurisprudence.
Case Background
Parties Involved:
Appellants: Hakim (Accused No.1) and Umesh (Accused No.2)
Respondents: State of NCT of Delhi and the acid attack survivor (Respondent-Victim)
Charges: Section 326A IPC (now Section 124 IPC) (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid), read with Section 34 IPC [now Section 3(5) BNS] (common intention)
Facts:
On June 8, 2014, the victim was attacked with acid near Govind Nagar Railway crossing in Mathura by three individuals—Hakim, Umesh, and Gyani—in retaliation for a previous police complaint. Eyewitnesses included Rajjo Devi (PW-6), who accompanied the victim, and medical professionals who testified to severe chemical burn injuries.
Judicial Findings
1. Concurrent Convictions Upheld
The trial court and the Delhi High Court both found the appellants guilty under Section 326A IPC, awarding life sentences. These findings were based on:
- Direct eyewitness testimony (particularly from the victim and PW-6)
- Medical evidence confirming acid burn injuries
- Motive established from past enmity
2. The Plea of Improbability by Defence
The defence raised several pleas asserting the improbability of the appellants’ involvement:
Hakim was over 70 years old and a retired army man—argued as physically incapable of participating.
- No concrete evidence on the source of the acid used.
- Delay in recording statements of key witnesses.
- Alleged contradictions in testimonies and site plans.
- Non-compliance with Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) in acid attack investigations.
- The appellants argued that such gaps should entitle them to acquittal or at least cast a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
A. Improbability Plea is No Defence Against Eyewitness Evidence
“The plea of improbability has no legal force in the presence of eye-witnesses and their testimony.”
The Court held that clear and consistent testimonies from the victim and PW-6 were sufficient to establish guilt. PW-6 was found to be within 10 paces of the attack and had full view of the incident. Age or profession of the accused (including the fact that one was a senior citizen and the other an advocate) did not automatically rule out their involvement.
B. Medical and Forensic Corroboration Strengthened Eyewitness Accounts
Medical experts (PW-5, PW-8 to PW-14) testified to serious chemical burn injuries and facial deformities, including 90% vision loss in one eye. Pre-injury photographs (like Aadhaar ID) confirmed no prior disability, negating the defence’s claim of pre-existing defects.
C. Delay in Witness Statements Justified
The delay in recording PW-4 and PW-6’s statements was explained by their urgent relocation due to threats and ongoing medical treatment. The Court accepted this justification based on documented evidence and reasonable apprehension for personal safety.
D. SOP Non-Compliance Not Fatal
The Court observed that SOPs, though desirable, are procedural guidelines and not mandatory. The investigation was otherwise found to be fair and complete.
The Court’s Position on Appeals
Umesh (Accused No.2): Appeal dismissed; sentence of life imprisonment upheld. Being a practicing advocate, he was expected to uphold the law and his conduct aggravated the offence.
Hakim (Accused No.1): Though the conviction was upheld, the Court reduced his sentence to 10 years due to age (73), serious illnesses, and on parity with Accused No.3, who was similarly convicted but awarded a lesser sentence due to youth.
Doctrinal Significance
The judgment clarifies several doctrinal positions:
1. Limited Scope for Supreme Court Interference in SLP Appeals
Relying on precedents like Mst Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab [(1976) 4 SCC 158] and Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2018) 16 SCC 96], the Court reiterated that it will not reappraise evidence unless there’s:
- Perversity in findings
- No evidence basis
- Legal error or gross miscarriage of justice
2. Credibility of Eyewitness Testimony Trumps Improbability Pleas
The Court emphasised the reliability of eyewitnesses over speculative arguments. As laid down in Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat [(1983) 3 SCC 217], minor discrepancies or subjective improbabilities are insufficient to discard otherwise credible testimonies.
Broader Legal Implications
A. Judicial Approach to Eyewitness Testimony
This judgment reinforces the approach that when direct evidence is credible, consistent, and corroborated, courts are reluctant to interfere merely due to alternative possibilities or the absence of perfect investigation.
B. No Blanket Benefit for Age or Profession
Age or social status (e.g., being a lawyer or veteran) does not grant immunity from legal consequences. Judicial equality before the law remains paramount.
C. Compensation for Victims
The Court also directed additional compensation of ₹5,00,000 to be paid to the victim under the Uttar Pradesh Victim Compensation Scheme, reflecting the Court’s victim-centric approach.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Hakim v. State of NCT of Delhi decisively answers the question: A plea of improbability cannot override clear, direct, and corroborated eyewitness evidence. Courts will look at the substance of the testimonies and overall evidence rather than accept defence pleas that lack evidentiary support.
The ruling serves as a reminder to defence counsel that factual improbability must be convincingly established—not merely asserted—especially when faced with strong, consistent prosecution narratives and judicial confirmations.
