Delhi District Court
State vs Raghu Nandan on 15 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAMAR VISHAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-02, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET, NEW
DELHI
CNR no.DLST01-014325-2024
Session Case No. 785/2024
In the matter of :
State
Versus
Raghu Nandan and Ors.
FIR No. : 627/2015
Police Station : Sangam Vihar
Under Section : 354/506/341/509 IPC
Date of institution : 12.08.2016
Date on which reserve for judgment : 13.04.2026
Date of decision : 15.05.2026
Decision : Acquittal
JUDGMENT
1. The present case pertains to the trial of accused per- sons, namely Raghunandan and Gajadhar, for the alleged com- mission of offences punishable under Sections 354, 506, 341 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused persons allegedly assaulted the complainant, Priya Rai, and in the course of the said incident, committed acts amounting to outraging her modesty, criminal intimidation, wrongful restraint, and use of insulting words intended to outrage her modesty, for which they have been prosecuted in the present case.
2. The present FIR came to be registered on the basis Samar of a complaint dated 02.10.2015 lodged by the complainant, vishal SC No. 785/2024 State Vs Raghu Nandan and Ors. Page No. 1 of 23 Digitally signed by Samar vishal Date: 2026.05.15 16:27:56 +0530 Priya Rai. In her complaint, she stated that she is a resident of House No. J-3/98/6, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi, and is engaged in household work. It is alleged that on 02.10.2015 at about 12:00 noon, while the complainant was passing through the street to purchase household articles and reached near the house of ac- cused Gajadhar, water was thrown upon her from above by him. The complainant objected to the said act and questioned the ac- cused as to why water had been thrown without ensuring that no one was passing below.
3. It is further alleged that upon such objection being raised, accused Gajadhar started abusing the complainant. There- after, when the complainant returned to her house, accused Ga- jadhar pushed her, and struck her on her chest. In the meantime, his younger brother, accused Raghunandan, also reached the spot, and both accused persons allegedly abused the complainant. It is further the case of the prosecution that accused Raghunan- dan instigated accused Gajadhar by exhorting him to stab the complainant. It is also alleged that both the accused persons ex- tended threats to the complainant. It is further stated that a call at the emergency number 100 was made by them.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the present FIR under Sections 354/506/34 IPC was registered, and investi- gation was set into motion.
5. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan and recorded the statements of wit- Samar nesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It was further revealed during vishal SC No. 785/2024 State Vs Raghu Nandan and Ors. Page No. 2 of 23 Digitally signed by Samar vishal Date: 2026.05.15 16:28:01 +0530 investigation that, on the complaint of Suman, daughter of ac- cused Gajadhar, a cross-case bearing FIR No. 626/15 under Sec- tions 354/509 IPC was registered against Vikram Rai, son of the complainant Priya Rai. The statement of the complainant Priya Rai was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. During the course of investigation, on 15.10.2015, both the accused persons, namely Gajadhar and Raghunandan, were formally arrested and subsequently released on bail upon furnishing the requisite bail bonds. The investiga- tion further revealed that no independent public witness could be found or joined during the course of investigation.
6. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the present charge sheet against both the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 354/506/451/509/34 IPC.
7. Vide order dated 24.07.2017, charges were framed against both the accused persons for the offences punishable un- der Sections 354/506/509/341 IPC. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses. After the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused persons was put to both the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Both the accused denied all the allegations and stated that they had been Samar falsely implicated in the present case. vishal SC No. 785/2024 State Vs Raghu Nandan and Ors. Page No. 3 of 23 Digitally signed by Samar vishal Date: 2026.05.15 16:28:11 +0530
9. The accused Gajadhar, in his defence, stated that on the day of the incident, renovation work was being carried out at their house, and a few drops of water had accidentally fallen from their house upon Vikram, son of the complainant. Upon this, Vikram allegedly started abusing them. It was further stated that upon hearing the commotion, Suman Kranti, daughter of ac- cused Gajadhar, came outside, whereupon Vikram allegedly abused her and passed indecent remarks. It was also alleged that Vikram touched her inappropriately and tore her clothes. There- after, Suman Kranti made a call to the police at number 100, pur- suant to which FIR No. 626/15 was registered at Police Station Sangam Vihar against Vikram and other persons. The accused persons contended that the present case has been filed as a coun- terblast to the said FIR.
10. Accused Raghunandan also took a similar defence and further stated that there existed prior enmity between the par- ties on account of a dispute relating to construction of a balcony, which had arisen about 7-8 months prior to the present incident. In support of their defence, the accused persons examined them- selves as defence witnesses that are Raghunandan as DW-1 and Gajadhar as DW-2.
11. I have heard arguments advanced on behalf of state and considered the written arguments filed on behalf of the ac- cused persons. Learned APP for the State has argued that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the cogent and consistent testimony of SamarPW-2 Priya Rai, who is the complainant as well as the victim of vishal SC No. 785/2024 State Vs Raghu Nandan and Ors. Page No. 4 of 23 Digitally signed by Samar vishal Date: 2026.05.15 16:28:16 +0530 the incident. It is submitted that her testimony clearly establishes that accused Gajadhar threw "cement wala pani" upon her, abused her in filthy language, followed her to her house, pushed her, and outraged her modesty by putting his hand on her breast, thereafter sitting upon her and assaulting her. It is further argued that the role of accused Raghunandan is also clearly brought out, inasmuch as he caught hold of the complainant's legs and insti- gated co-accused by saying "chaku laa iske neeche (pishab ki ja- gah) ghusa dete hai...", thereby attracting the offence of criminal intimidation as well as sharing common intention.
12. It is further contended that the testimony of the pros- ecutrix is of sterling quality and does not require independent corroboration, particularly in offences relating to outraging mod- esty of a woman. It is further submitted that merely because no independent public witnesses were examined, despite the inci- dent taking place in a residential locality, the otherwise credible testimony of the complainant cannot be discarded. Learned APP has argued that minor discrepancies or omissions in the testi- mony of PW-2 are natural and do not go to the root of the case.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused has high- lighted material contradictions and inconsistencies in the testi- mony of the complainant vis-à-vis her earlier statements and has contended that the present case is false and fabricated, having been instituted as a counterblast to FIR No. 626/15 registered at the instance of Suman Kanti, daughter of accused Gajadhar, against the son of the complainant. It is submitted that the admit-
SC No. 785/2024 State Vs Raghu Nandan and Ors. Page No. 5 of 23 ted existence of a cross-case arising out of the same incident indi- cates that there was a mutual quarrel and that the complainant has falsely implicated the accused persons to shield her son.
14. It is further stated that, as per the defence version, the daughter of accused Gajadhar had made a call to the police at around 12:00 noon and had reached the police station along with the accused persons and lodged her complaint at the first in- stance, whereas the complainant is stated to have reached the po- lice station much later in the evening. According to learned coun- sel, this sequence of events clearly suggests that the present FIR was lodged subsequently as a counterblast to FIR No. 626/15.
15. It is also stated in written arguments that the Investi- gating Officer Sub-Inspector Liyakat Ali, who stated that al- though he made enquiries from the neighbours, no independent witness could be found to support the prosecution case. It is sub- mitted that this is in stark contrast with the version of the com- plainant, who stated that several neighbours had gathered at the spot after the incident. It is argued that it is highly improbable that, in a densely populated residential locality, no independent person would come forward to support the prosecution version in respect of such a serious allegation.
16. The defence has further placed reliance upon the tes- timonies of DW-1 and DW-2, i.e., both the accused persons, to contend that the incident in question has been wrongly projected Samar by the complainant and that the defence version probabilises an vishal alternative genesis of the occurrence. Accordingly, it is submitted SC No. 785/2024 State Vs Raghu Nandan and Ors. Page No. 6 of 23 Digitally signed by Samar vishal Date: 2026.05.15 16:28:25 +0530 that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond rea- sonable doubt and the accused persons are entitled to acquittal.
17. Now coming to the appreciation of evidence led in this case. The case is based on the oral evidence of the com- plainant. A witness who has personally seen the occurrence of the incident under inquiry is regarded as an eyewitness. The testi- mony of an eyewitness, if found to be credible and trustworthy, carries significant evidentiary value and cannot be discarded without cogent reasons. It is well settled that a conviction can be sustained on the basis of the sole testimony of an eyewitness, provided it inspires full confidence of the court. However, if the testimony is found to be partly unreliable or doubtful, the court may prudently seek independent corroboration to ensure the truthfulness of the prosecution case.
18. In Rammi alias Rameshwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1999 SC 256, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possi- bly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an un- true witness who is well tutored can successfully make his testi- mony totally non- discrepant. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. But too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between SC No. 785/2024 State Vs Raghu Nandan and Ors. Page No. 7 of 23 two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny.
19. In Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar AIR 1965 SC 277, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated the legal position that the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in ev- erything) is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice. Hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not con- tain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroideries or embellishments. It is, therefore, the duty of the court to scruti- nise the evidence carefully and, in terms of the felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff. But it cannot obvi- ously disbelieve the substratum of the prosecution case or the material parts of the evidence and reconstruct a story of its own out of the rest.
20. In Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2000 SC 3352, Hon'ble Supreme court reiterated the law laid down in its previous judgements and observed that there are bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellish- ment, there may be, but variations by reason therefore should not render the evidence of eye- witnesses unbelievable. Trivial dis- Samar crepancies ought not to obliterate otherwise acceptable evidence. vishal Digitally signed SC No. 785/2024 State Vs Raghu Nandan and Ors. Page No. 8 of 23 by Samar vishal Date:
2026.05.15 16:28:29 +0530 The Court shall have to bear in mind that different witnesses re- act differently under different situations: whereas some become speechless, some start wailing while some others run away from the scene and yet there are some who may come forward with courage, conviction and belief that the wrong should be reme- died. As a matter of fact, it depends upon individuals and individ- uals. There cannot be any set pattern or uniform rule of human reaction and to discard a piece of evidence on the ground of his reaction not failing within a set pattern is unproductive and a pedantic exercise.
21. Now with these legal parameters regarding appreci- ation of evidence of eyewitness and being conscious of the fact that the burden of proof in a criminal trial is always on the prose- cution and it never shifts and to secure a conviction, the prosecu- tion has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. Though it is neither possible nor prudent to have a straight-jacket formula or principle which would apply to all cases without variance and every case has to be appreciated on its own facts and in light of the evidence led by the parties. It is for the court to examine the cumulative effect of the evidence in order to determine whether the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt or that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
22. On the basis of above factual and legal position, I have undertaken a careful evaluation of the entire material placed Samar on record, guided by the settled principles governing criminal ju- vishal risprudence. In a criminal trial, the burden lies squarely upon the Digitally signed SC No. 785/2024 State Vs Raghu Nandan and Ors. Page No. 9 of 23 by Samar vishal Date: 2026.05.15 16:28:37 +0530 prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. I have therefore scrutinised the testimonies of witnesses, the documen- tary and electronic materials, the forensic report, and the exami- nation of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., keeping in mind that the gravity of allegations.
23. The prosecution case rests primarily upon the testi- mony of PW-2 Priya Rai, who is both the complainant and the victim in the present case, the remaining witnesses being formal police witnesses associated with the investigation. PW-2 deposed that she is a housewife, illiterate, and resides at Sangam Vihar with her family. She stated that on 02.10.2015 at about 12:00 noon, when she was going to purchase soap and reached near the house of accused Gajadhar, he "ekdum se cement wala pani upar se phenk ke maara". When she looked up and objected by saying "dekh kar paani dalo", accused Gajadhar started abusing her, stating "behan ki lodhi tujhe abhi nikalna tha yahan se". She fur- ther deposed that she asked him to come down and when she started returning towards her house, accused Gajadhar followed her, pushed her by putting his hand on her breast, and entered her house. She fell down and accused Gajadhar sat on her, abused her, and beat her while sitting on her. In the meantime, accused Raghunandan arrived, put his leg on her right leg and lifted her left leg, and stated "chaku laa iske neeche (pishab ki jagah) ghusa dete hai, iske ghar me koi nahi hai aaj, akeli hai". She raised alarm, upon which neighbours gathered, and both accused per- sons fled from the spot while allegedly threatening to kill her. Samar She correctly identified both the accused persons in Court. She vishal Digitally signed SC No. 785/2024 State Vs Raghu Nandan and Ors. Page No. 10 of 23 by Samar vishal Date:
2026.05.15 16:28:43 +0530 further alleged that after the incident, the sons of accused Gajad- har used to threaten her by saying "case utha le nahi to tere muh par tejab daal denge". She stated that she did not make any call to the police and did not know who had called at number 100. The police came and asked her to come to the police station, where her statement Ex. PW-1/A was recorded, bearing her thumb im- pression, and her statement was also recorded before a lady Mag- istrate.
24. In her cross-examination, PW-2 stated that her hus- band had left for work at about 8:00 a.m., and her son was not present at home as he had gone to his maternal grandmother's house after a school picnic, though she admitted that she did not possess any document to substantiate the same. She also stated that no tenants were residing in her house at the relevant time. She deposed that she raised alarm, upon which 2-3 neighbours came, though she did not remember their names. She admitted that she did not ask them to call the police and that none of them extended any help to her. She further stated that when the neigh- bours arrived, accused Gajadhar was sitting on her with his hands on her chest, and accused Raghunandan was holding her legs, but the neighbours merely stood there. She admitted that she did not make any call to the police, did not call her husband or her son after the incident, and did not inform any neighbour about the incident. She also stated that she did not know who informed the police. She claimed that the police reached within about 10 min-
Samar utes and directed her to come to the police station, which she reached on her own. She further stated that she did not know vishal Digitally signed by Samar vishal SC No. 785/2024 State Vs Raghu Nandan and Ors. Page No. 11 of 23 Date: 2026.05.15 16:28:49 +0530 what was written in her complaint Ex. PW-1/A and that HC Devraj had not read over the contents of the complaint to her be- fore obtaining her thumb impression. She also admitted that she did not undergo any medical examination and that she had given her statement to the police only once.
25. PW-2 denied the suggestions put to her by the de- fence that water had accidentally fallen upon her son Vikram, that he had abused the accused and assaulted Suman Kranti, and that FIR No. 626/15 had been registered at the instance of the ac- cused side prior to the present case. She also denied the sugges- tion that the present case was filed as a counterblast to the said FIR or that there existed prior enmity arising out of a dispute re- lating to construction or Panchayat proceedings. She denied the suggestion that she had falsely implicated the accused persons in collusion with her neighbour Rajni. Despite lengthy cross-exami- nation, she remained firm on the core allegations regarding the acts attributed to the accused persons, though her testimony re- flects absence of independent corroboration, lack of medical evi- dence, uncertainty regarding the contents and recording of her complaint, and the admitted existence of a cross-case, all of which require careful judicial evaluation.
26. The remaining prosecution witnesses are formal po- lice witnesses who were examined to prove the registration of the FIR and the steps taken during investigation. PW-1 SI Jawahar Singh deposed that on 01.10.2015, he was posted as ASI at PS SamarSangam Vihar and was working as Duty Officer from 04:00 p.m. vishal to 12:00 midnight. At about 11:00 p.m., HC Devraj handed over SC No. 785/2024 State Vs Raghu Nandan and Ors. Page No. 12 of 23 Digitally signed by Samar vishal Date: 2026.05.15 16:28:54 +0530 to him a tehrir, on the basis of which he made endorsement at point X on Ex. PW-1/A and registered FIR No. 627/15 Ex. PW-1/B.
27. PW-3 ASI Liyakat Ali deposed that on 02.10.2015, after registration of the FIR, the investigation of the present case was marked to him by the SHO. During the course of investiga- tion, he prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant vide Ex. PW-3/A. He further deposed that he got the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. He also formally arrested both the accused persons vide arrest memos Ex. PW-3/B and Ex. PW-3/C and conducted their personal search vide memos Ex. PW-3/D and Ex. PW-3/E. He correctly identified both the accused persons in Court and stated that after completion of investigation, he pre- pared and filed the charge sheet before the Court.
28. PW-4 W/ Ct. Lalita deposed that on 02.10.2015, she was posted as DD writer at PS Sangam Vihar. On that day, she received a call from the Control Room, South-East District re- garding a quarrel at J-3/99, Gali No. 6, Sangam Vihar, Neem Chowk, which she reduced into writing as DD No. 36B exhibited as Ex. PW-4/A.
29. PW-5 HC Devraj, the first police official to reach the spot, deposed that on 02.10.2015, he was posted as Head Constable at PS Sangam Vihar and was on emergency duty from 08:00 a.m. to 08:00 p.m. Upon receiving DD entry No. 36B, he Samar along with Ct. Mukesh reached the spot at J-3 Block, Gali No. 6, vishal SC No. 785/2024 State Vs Raghu Nandan and Ors. Page No. 13 of 23 Digitally signed by Samar vishal Date: 2026.05.15 16:28:58 +0530 H. No. 99, Sangam Vihar, where they met Priya Rai and Sumankanti. He asked them to give their statements, however, they did not give any statement at that time. Thereafter, he re- turned to the police station. He further deposed that in the evening, the complainant came to the police station and gave a written complaint Ex. PW-1/A, on the basis of which he prepared the rukka Ex. PW-5/A bearing his signature at point B and got the FIR registered. He further stated that thereafter the investiga- tion was handed over to ASI Liyakat Ali.
30. Thus, the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses are formal in nature and pertain to the recording of the initial infor- mation, registration of FIR, and procedural aspects of investiga- tion. Their depositions do not throw any direct light on the occur- rence in question but are relevant to assess the promptness and manner in which the investigation was conducted.
31. The defence examined two witnesses, namely ac- cused Raghunandan as DW-1 and accused Gajadhar as DW-2, who set up a version contrary to that of the prosecution. DW-1 Raghunandan deposed that on 02.10.2015, being a holiday on ac- count of Gandhi Jayanti, he was present at his house while repair work was going on at the house of his brother Gajadhar. He stated that the son of the complainant, Vikram Rai, was passing through the street when a few drops of water fell upon him, whereupon Vikram started hurling abuses. On hearing the same, SamarSuman Kanti, his niece, came out and questioned Vikram, who vishal allegedly misbehaved with her and tore her clothes. He further Digitally signedSC No. 785/2024 State Vs Raghu Nandan and Ors. Page No. 14 of 23 by Samar vishal Date:
2026.05.15 16:29:04 +0530 deposed that Suman Kanti made a call at number 100, the police arrived at the spot, and took him, Gajadhar, and Suman Kanti to the police station, while Vikram fled from the spot. According to him, the complainant did not call her son to the police station de- spite being asked. He further stated that prior to the incident, there was a dispute regarding construction of a chajja, on account of which the complainant was nursing a grudge. He relied upon the record of the 100 number call made by Suman Kanti, exhib- ited as Ex. DW-1/A.
32. In his cross-examination, DW-1 made several mate- rial admissions. He stated that he used to leave for work at about 9:00 a.m. even on holidays, yet claimed that he remained at home the entire day on the date of incident. He admitted that the inci- dent took place in front of the house of Gajadhar and that con- struction work was going on there. He further admitted that he had not seen the incident as initially narrated by him in his exam- ination-in-chief regarding Vikram misbehaving with Suman Kanti and tearing her clothes. He stated that he reached the spot after hearing noise of quarrelling between Priya Rai and Vikram at about 11:00 a.m. He also admitted that he had not seen Vikram misbehaving with Suman Kanti. He, however, denied the prose- cution suggestion that he and co-accused had assaulted the com- plainant or that he had exhorted to insert a knife in her private parts. He maintained that the quarrel started due to falling of wa- ter and denied that he had deposed falsely to save himself and his Samar brother.
vishal Digitally signed by Samar vishal SC No. 785/2024 State Vs Raghu Nandan and Ors. Page No. 15 of 23 Date: 2026.05.15 16:29:09 +0530
33. DW-2 Gajadhar deposed that on 02.10.2015, he was carrying out repair work at his house when the son of the com- plainant, Vikram Rai, started abusing him after a few drops of water fell on him. Upon hearing the abuses, his daughter Suman Kanti came out and questioned Vikram, who allegedly misbe- haved with her, tore her kurti, and touched her chest. He further deposed that thereafter the complainant arrived at the spot, abused him, and allegedly used caste-based remarks stating "chamar ko chawani mil gayi to uchalne lage", and threatened him by saying "makaan bechwakar rahungi". He stated that his daughter made a call at number 100, the police came, and took them to the police station, while Vikram fled. He further deposed that prior to the incident, there was a dispute regarding his chajja since 2014, and the complainant was holding a grudge. He relied upon a prior complaint and reiterated that the present case was false and filed due to prior enmity.
34. In his cross-examination, DW-2 denied the prosecu- tion suggestions that no such incident involving Vikram had taken place or that the complainant had not used caste-based re- marks. He admitted that he had not made any complaint regard- ing the earlier dispute in 2014 nor called the police at that time. He stated that his daughter had made a 100 number call at about 11:45 a.m. He denied that water had fallen upon the complainant or that he had abused or molested her, and also denied that his brother had made any exhortation as alleged by the complainant. He further denied that the defence story was concocted to save SC No. 785/2024 State Vs Raghu Nandan and Ors. Page No. 16 of 23 himself and his brother or that he had falsely implicated the com- plainant and her family members.
35. Thus, both defence witnesses have projected a ver- sion that the incident originated due to falling of water on Vikram Rai, followed by an altercation in which Suman Kanti was allegedly misbehaved with, leading to a PCR call and regis- tration of a cross-case. However, the testimony of DW-1 is mate- rially weakened by his admission that he had not witnessed the alleged acts of misbehaviour by Vikram, while DW-2 has sup- ported the defence version in material particulars and attributed motive of prior enmity to the complainant.
36. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and have carefully perused the entire material avail- able on record. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt lies upon the prosecution and the same never shifts. The prosecution is required to stand on its own legs and must establish the guilt of the accused by leading cogent, reliable and unimpeachable evidence.
37. In the present case, the prosecution has primarily re- lied upon the sole testimony of PW-2 Priya Rai, who is the com- plainant and the victim. While it is true that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if found to be Samar credible and trustworthy, however, such testimony must inspire vishal Digitally signed by Samar vishal SC No. 785/2024 State Vs Raghu Nandan and Ors. Page No. 17 of 23 Date: 2026.05.15 16:29:14 +0530 confidence and be of sterling quality. In the present case, the tes- timony of PW-2, when tested on the touchstone of cross-exami- nation and surrounding circumstances, does not inspire such con- fidence so as to form the sole basis of conviction.
38. Several material aspects create serious doubt in the prosecution case. Firstly, admittedly no independent public wit- ness has been examined, despite the complainant herself stating that neighbours had gathered at the spot. The failure of the prose- cution to examine such material witnesses assumes significance, particularly when the incident is alleged to have taken place in a densely populated residential locality in broad daylight.
39. A careful reading of the cross-examination of PW-2 further compounds this doubt. She stated that upon hearing her cries, 2-3 neighbours had come, though she could not recall their names. She admitted that she had not made any call at number 100 after the incident and had not called either her husband or her son, stating that she did not know how to make a call from a mobile phone, despite also admitting that she had a mobile phone on the date of the incident. She further admitted that she had not asked any of the public persons who had gathered there to call the police on her behalf and that she did not know who had in- formed the police.
Digitally signed by Samar Samar vishal vishal Date:
2026.05.15 16:29:19 SC +0530 No. 785/2024 State Vs Raghu Nandan and Ors. Page No. 18 of 23
40. The complainant also stated that when the neigh-
bours arrived, she was sitting and crying; however, she simulta- neously stated that at that very time, accused Gajadhar was sit- ting on top of her with his hands on her chest and accused Raghunandan was holding one of her legs and had placed his leg on the other. She further deposed that as soon as the neighbours arrived upon hearing her cries, both the accused persons left her and fled from the spot. Notably, she admitted that none of the neighbours who had gathered there offered any assistance to her and merely stood by. More importantly, she admitted that she did not narrate the incident to any of those neighbours.
41. The aforesaid admissions clearly indicate that, as per the complainant's own version, public persons were present at or immediately after the incident, yet none of them have been cited or examined as prosecution witnesses. While it is settled law that non-examination of independent witnesses is not invariably fatal to the prosecution case, the same assumes importance where such witnesses are natural witnesses to the occurrence and their non- examination remains unexplained.
42. In the present case, the absence of independent cor- roboration assumes greater significance in view of other attend- ing circumstances, namely, the admitted existence of a cross-case against the complainant's family, the failure of the complainant to make any immediate police call or seek assistance despite hav- ing access to a mobile phone, and the absence of any medical ex- Samar vishal SC No. 785/2024 State Vs Raghu Nandan and Ors. Page No. 19 of 23 Digitally signed by Samar vishal Date: 2026.05.15 16:29:35 +0530 amination despite allegations of physical assault. These circum- stances, when cumulatively appreciated, render the testimony of the complainant insufficiently reliable to be acted upon without corroboration.
43. Secondly, the conduct of the complainant appears to be unnatural. She admitted that she did not make any call to the police, did not ask any neighbour to call the police, and was un- aware as to who informed the police. In cases involving allega- tions of assault and outraging modesty, the absence of any imme- diate distress call or prompt reporting creates a dent in the prose- cution version and raises doubt regarding the manner in which the incident is alleged to have occurred.
44. Thirdly, the complainant admitted that she did not know the contents of her complaint Ex. PW-1/A and that the same was not read over to her before obtaining her thumb im- pression. This creates a serious doubt regarding the authenticity and correctness of the initial version of the prosecution case, which forms the very basis of the FIR.
45. Fourthly, no medical examination of the com- plainant was conducted, despite allegations of physical assault and manhandling. Though absence of medical evidence is not al- ways fatal, in the facts of the present case, it assumes importance when the testimony of the complainant itself is not wholly reli- able.
Digitally
signed by
Samar
Samar vishal
vishal Date:
2026.05.15
16:29:41
SC No. 785/2024 State Vs Raghu Nandan and Ors. Page No. 20 of 23
+0530
46. Fifthly, it has come on record that a cross-case bear- ing FIR No. 626/15 was registered at the instance of the accused side against the son of the complainant arising out of the same incident. The defence has been able to probabilise its version that the incident may have originated due to a quarrel involving Vikram Rai and Suman Kanti. The testimony of DW-1, though partly shaken, and that of DW-2, when read in conjunction with the admitted existence of a PCR call made from the side of the accused, lends some credence to the defence version and raises a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case.
47. It is also noteworthy that the testimony of DW-1 contains material admissions to the effect that he had not wit- nessed certain portions of the incident as narrated by him in ex- amination-in-chief, thereby weakening the defence to some ex- tent; however, even after discarding the unreliable portions of the defence, the prosecution is still required to prove its case inde- pendently beyond reasonable doubt, which it has failed to do.
48. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid circumstances is that the prosecution case suffers from material infirmities, lack of corroboration, and inherent improbabilities. The evidence on record does not inspire the degree of confidence required to hold the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. At best, the evi- dence creates suspicion; however, it is trite that suspicion, how- soever strong, cannot take the place of proof.
Digitally
signed by
Samar
Samar vishal
SC No. 785/2024 State Vs Raghu Nandan and Ors. Page No. 21 of 23
vishal Date:
2026.05.15
16:29:46
+0530
49. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The ac- cused persons are, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt.
50. Accordingly, both the accused persons, namely Raghunandan and Gajadhar, are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 354, 506, 509 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code.
51. Bail bonds of the accused persons are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. However, in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C., both the accused are directed to furnish fresh personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to appear before the appellate court, if so required, within a period of six months.
52. File be consigned to Record Room after due compli- ance.
Digitally signed by Announced in the open Court Samar Samar vishal on 15th May 2026. vishal Date:
2026.05.15 16:29:53 +0530 (Samar Vishal) ASJ-02, South District Saket Courts, New Delhi 15.05.2026 SC No. 785/2024 State Vs Raghu Nandan and Ors. Page No. 22 of 23 Certified that this Order contains 23 pages and each page bears my signatures. Digitally signed Samar byDate:Samar vishal vishal 2026.05.15 16:29:59 +0530 (Samar Vishal) ASJ-02, South District Saket Courts, New Delhi 15.05.2026 SC No. 785/2024 State Vs Raghu Nandan and Ors. Page No. 23 of 23