Identity of accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; conviction failed where contemporaneous records named a different person.

The prosecution had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was the same person as Seema Choudhari named in the contemporaneous recovery and arrest records. The FIR, seizure memo, arrest memo, remand report and medical examination memo consistently recorded only Seema Choudhari, while the Section 313 CrPC examination did not confront the appellant with the identity case, causing prejudice. A bail order based on summary inquiry without oral evidence was not a final determination on identity. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish identity, so the conviction and sentence could not stand and the appellant was acquitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was the same person as Seema Choudhari, the accused shown in the contemporaneous records relating to recovery and arrest.

Analysis: The prosecution bore the burden of establishing that the person found in the vehicle at the time of recovery was the appellant. The contemporaneous documents, including the FIR, seizure memo, arrest memo, remand report and medical examination memo, consistently recorded the name Seema Choudhari and did not mention the appellant. The order passed on the bail application could not be treated as a final adjudication on identity, as it was based only on a summary inquiry without oral evidence. The appellant's examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 also did not put to her the case that she and Seema Choudhari were the same person, causing prejudice.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove the appellant's identity as the accused arrested on 4 March 2016. The conviction could not be sustained and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were set aside insofar as the appellant was concerned, and she was acquitted of the charges.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction cannot be sustained unless the prosecution proves, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused before the court is the same person against whom the incriminating occurrence and contemporaneous records are directed, and the accused must be given a fair opportunity to meet that case.

---