Delhi District Court
State vs Shamsher Ali on 2 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JMFC-05,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
Presided over by- Sh. Ankur Panghal, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 4164/2024
CNR No. -: DLWT020084032024
FIR No. -: 343/2022
Police Station -: Anand Parbat
Section(s) -: 323/324/325/504/506 IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
SHAMSHER ALI
S/o Amir Ali,
R/o 1865, G-Block,
Transit Camp, Anand Parbat, Delhi.
... Accused Person
1. Name of Complainant :- Sahil
2. Name of Accused :- Shamsher Ali
Person
3. Offence complained of :- 323/324/325/504/506 IPC
or proved
4. Plea of Accused Person :- Not Guilty
5. Date of Commission of :- 13.07.2022
offence
6. Date of Filing of case :- 12.04.2024
7. Date of Reserving :- 02.04.2026
Order
8. Date of Pronouncement :- 02.04.2026
9. Final Order :- Acquitted
Argued by -: Ms. Arunima Goel, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Ayub Ahmed Qureshi, Ld. Counsel for
the accused person.
JUDGMENT
1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 13.07.2022 at around 09:00 PM at 1671, F-Block, Transit Camp, Anand Parbat, within the jurisdiction of PS Anand Parbat, the accused person namely Shamsher Ali voluntarily caused simple hurt to victim namely Tarana. It is further alleged that the accused Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:48:33 +0530 Cr. Case No. 4164/2024 State vs. Shamsher Ali Page 1 of 12 voluntarily caused simple hurt, with sharp edged object, to victim/complainant Sahil. Furthermore, it is alleged that the accused voluntarily caused grievous hurt to victim Abdul Salam and has also criminally intimidated all the victims with dire consequences. As such, it is alleged that the accused person has committed the offences punishable under section 323/324/325/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC") for which the present FIR was lodged in PS Anand Parbat.
2. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC). The accused person was released on police bail. Relevant record was collected. Final report under section 173 CrPC, was prepared against the abovenamed accused person and chalan was presented in the court on 12.04.2024. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused person was summoned to face trial.
3. On his appearance, a copy of chargesheet was supplied to him in terms of section 207 CrPC. On finding a prima facie case against the accused person, charge under section 323/324/325/506(I) IPC was framed against all the accused person namely Shamsher Ali on 24.01.2026. The accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused person to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: - Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL ANKUR Date:
PANGHAL 2026.04.02 16:48:51 +0530 Cr. Case No. 4164/2024 State vs. Shamsher Ali Page 2 of 12 ORAL EVIDENCE PW1 :- Sahil (Complainant) PW2 :- Abdul Salam (Injured) PW3 :- Tarana (Injured) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/A :- Statement of Complainant Ex. PW2/A :- Statement of injured Abdul Salam Ex. PW3/A :- Statement of injured Tarana ADMITTED DOCUMENTS (under S. 294 CrPC) Ex. AD1 :- FIR No. 343/2022 PS Anand Parbat without admitting the contents Ex. AD2 :- Certificate U/s 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Ex. AD3 :- Endorsement on rukka Ex AD4 :- DD No. 87A dated 13.07.2022
5. Sahil (PW1) was examined in chief wherein he deposed that he does not remember the date and time and a quarrel had taken place, after which police officers came at the spot. He further deposed that the police officers took his signatures on blank papers and he does not know the party between whom the quarrel took place. He further deposed that he does not wish to state anything else. He further deposed that he can identify the accused, as the accused is his brother-in-law, however he was not the part of the quarrel.
Digitally signedby ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:48:59 +0530 Cr. Case No. 4164/2024 State vs. Shamsher Ali Page 3 of 12 5.1. PW1 was cross-examined by Ld. APP and he denied the suggestion that that on 13.07.2022 his sister Tarana came to his house and informed that her husband i.e., the accused had given her beating and slapped her after which she is not able to hear from her ear. PW1 further denied the suggestion that accused called his father and asked him to send his sister Tarana back on which his father told him that Tarana will came back after 1-2 days. He further denied the suggestion that accused lost his cool and started abusing in filthy language and told that he is coming to take back Tarana immediately and he will see who will stop him. PW1 further denied the suggestion that at about 09:00PM accused came to his house and started abusing in filthy language. He further denied the suggestion that the accused slapped him and hit him with a sharp (nukili) weapon. PW1 further denied the suggestion that accused had hit him on his left-hand, right-hand thumb, shoulder and chest. He further denied the suggestion that when his father came to rescue him, accused bit him on the finger of his right hand. PW1 further denied the suggestion that accused had run away from the spot. He further denied the suggestion that he had under gone medical treatment at Sardar Patel Hospital and DDU Hospital. PW1 further denied the suggestion that he had given any statement to police officers. PW1 was confronted with his statement Ex.PW1/A and on seeing the same, the witness stated that though the statement bears his signatures at point A, the same is false. He further voluntarily deposed that IO had made him sign blank papers. PW1 further denied the suggestion that IO had prepared any site plan at his instance or that accused was arrested in his presence or that he is intentionally and deliberately not Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.02 16:49:05 +0530 Cr. Case No. 4164/2024 State vs. Shamsher Ali Page 4 of 12 disclosing the complete facts as he has been won over by the accused. PW1 also denied the suggestion that the incident as stated in Ex. PW1/A had taken place or that he is deposing falsely.
5.2. PW1 was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused person, despite opportunity being given in that regard.
6. Abdul Salam (PW2) is the injured in present case and he was examined-in-chief on 10.02.2026 wherein he deposed that he does not remember the date and time of the incident and a quarrel had taken place after which police officers came at the spot. He further deposed that he does not know the parties between whom the quarrel took place and he does not wish to state anything else. He further deposed that he can identify the accused, as the accused is my son in law, however, he was not the part of the quarrel.
6.1. PW2 was cross-examined by Ld. APP and he denied the suggestion that on 13.07.2022 his daughter Tarana came to his house and informed that her husband i.e., the accused had given her beating and slapped her after which she is not able to hear from her ear. PW2 further denied the suggestion that accused called him and asked him to send his daughter Tarana back on which he told him that Tarana will came back after 1-2 days. PW2 further denied the suggestion that accused lost his cool and started abusing in filthy language and told that he is coming to take back Tarana immediately and he will see who will stop him. PW2 further denied the suggestion that at about 09:00PM accused came to his house and started abusing in filthy language. PW2 further Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.02 16:49:12 +0530 Cr. Case No. 4164/2024 State vs. Shamsher Ali Page 5 of 12 denied the suggestion that the accused slapped his son Sahil and hit him with a sharp (nukili) weapon. PW2 further denied the suggestion that accused had hit his son on his left-hand, right-hand thumb, shoulder and chest. PW2 further denied the suggestion that when he came to rescue his son accused bit him on his right hand finger. PW2 further denied the suggestion that accused had run away from the spot. PW2 further denied the suggestion that he had under gone medical treatment at Sardar Patel Hospital and DDU Hospital. PW2 further denied the suggestion that he had given any statement to police officers. The witness was confronted with his statement Ex PW 2/A and on seeing the same, the witness stated that the same is false. PW2 further denied the suggestion that he is intentionally and deliberately not disclosing the complete facts as he has been won over by the accused. PW2 further denied the suggestion that the incident as stated in Ex. PW2/A had taken place. PW2 also denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
6.2. PW2 was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused person, despite opportunity being given in that regard.
7. Tarana (PW3) is the injured in present case and she was examined-in-chief on 10.02.2026 wherein she deposed that she does not know anything about the present case and does not wish to state anything else. She further deposed that she can identify the accused, as the accused is her husband.
7.1. PW3 was cross-examined by Ld. APP and she denied the suggestion that on 13.07.2022 she had gone to her matrimonial house and informed her family members that her husband i.e., the accused had given her beating and slapped her Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:49:18 +0530 Cr. Case No. 4164/2024 State vs. Shamsher Ali Page 6 of 12 after which she is unable to hear from her right ear. PW3 further denied the suggestion that accused called his father and asked him to send her back on which her father told him that she will came back after 1-2 days. PW3 further denied the suggestion that accused lost his cool and started abusing in filthy language and told that he is coming to take her back immediately and he will see who will stop him. PW3 further denied the suggestion that at about 09:00PM accused came to her matrimonial house and started abusing in filthy language. PW3 further denied the suggestion that the accused slapped her brother and hit him with a sharp ( nukili) weapon. PW3 further denied the suggestion that accused had hit him on his left-hand, right-hand thumb, shoulder and chest. PW3 further denied the suggestion that when her father came to rescue her brother accused bit him on the finger of his right hand. PW3 further denied the suggestion that accused had run away from the spot. PW3 further denied the suggestion that she had under gone medical treatment at Sardar Patel Hospital and DDU Hospital. PW3 further denied the suggestion that she had given any statement to police officers. The witness was confronted with her statement Ex PW 3/A and on seeing the same, the witness stated that the same is false. PW3 further denied the suggestion that she is intentionally and deliberately not disclosing the complete facts as she has been won over by the accused. PW3 further denied the suggestion that the incident as stated in Ex. PW3/A had taken place. PW3 also denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely.
7.2. PW3 was not cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused person, despite opportunity being given in that regard. Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.02 16:49:26 +0530 Cr. Case No. 4164/2024 State vs. Shamsher Ali Page 7 of 12
8. Since, the prosecution has cited only three independent/public witnesses in the present matter, one of whom is the complainant himself and other two are injured/victims and all the witnesses have turned hostile to the case of prosecution. The identity of accused person and case property in a criminal trial is of paramount importance and no person can be indicted for criminal liability, unless his identity is established beyond any shadow of doubt. In the present case, since the complainant and eyewitness of the case have not supported the version of the prosecution, no fruitful purpose would have been served to examine other witnesses as they were formal in nature and even if their testimonies ever taken together, they would have not established the guilt of the accused person.
9. Prosecution evidence was closed, vide separate order passed on 10.02.2026, as recording of any further prosecution evidence in the present case would have resulted in to wastage of judicial time, money, resources and would also have caused unnecessary operation to the accused person who has anyhow faced the ordeal of the trial in the present case for last more than one and a half year. In this regard reference may be made to a Division Bench Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed in the case of Govind & Ors. vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 104 (2003) DLT 510 wherein it was held that: -
"...In cases where the ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak for there is no prospect of the case and again conviction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion of a future date." Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:49:32 +0530 Cr. Case No. 4164/2024 State vs. Shamsher Ali Page 8 of 12 9.1. Right to speedy trial is constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of the accused person. The present case pertains to an FIR of the year 2022 and continuing the trial any further, when it is clear that prosecution can never hope to prove its case against the accused person would tantamount to violation of right to speedy trial of the accused. It has been held in P.Ramchandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka AIR 2022 SC 1856 that the court should exercise its power available under Criminal Procedure Code to give effect to the right of speedy trial to the accused. Similar observations were made in Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Mahrashtra AIR 2008 SC 3057. Furthermore, in Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Abr. 1996 JCC 507 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that valuable time of the court should not be wasted merely for formal completion of procedure when there is no chance of the trial culminating in conviction.
10. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to allow the accused person to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused person was recorded without oath under section 281 r/w 313 CrPC. In reply, the accused person stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he did not assault anyone and that he is innocent. Thereafter, he stated that he does not wish to lead evidence in his defence and the same was closed.
11. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for the accused person at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL
ANKUR Date:
PANGHAL 2026.04.02 16:49:38 +0530 Cr. Case No. 4164/2024 State vs. Shamsher Ali Page 9 of 12
12. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the state that evidence of hostile witness can be read on material points and it can be used to prove the offences charged against the accused person. As such, it is prayed that the accused person be punished for the said offences.
13. Per contra, the Ld. counsel for the accused person has argued that the state has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. Counsel has argued that main witnesses have turned hostile and despite reading their evidence as a whole, nothing has come on record against the accused. As such, it is prayed that the accused person be acquitted for the said offences.
14. The accused person has been charged for the offence under section 323/324/325/506(I) IPC. For offence under Section 323/324/325/506(I) IPC, it has to be proved that the accused person has criminal intimidated the complainant as well as injured victims and has voluntary caused simple hurt to injured/victim Tarana, simple hurt with a sharp-edged weapon to injured/victim Sahil and caused grievous hurt to injured/victim Abdul Salam.
15. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by reducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
16. The main witnesses of the prosecution have turned hostile in the present case on the point of causing of hurt/grievous hurt as well as criminal intimidation to them by the accused person. It is pertinent to note that under Indian law, the evidence of ANKUR PANGHAL Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:49:52 +0530 Cr. Case No. 4164/2024 State vs. Shamsher Ali Page 10 of 12 hostile witnesses not discarded completely. The legal maxim, "false in uno false in ombnibus" is not applicable in India. With respect to the evidentiary value of hostile witness, it was observed by the Apex Court in the case of Rohtash Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434, as under: -
"25. It is a settled legal proposition that evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto, merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced, or washed off the record altogether. The same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable, upon a careful scrutiny thereof."
17. Therefore, it has to be seen if the evidence of such hostile witnesses can be relied in part. In the present case, the evidence available on record is not sufficient to help the prosecution. PW1, PW2 and PW3 have identified the accused person, being their relative but they failed to depose anything regarding causing hurt, simple or grievous or causing criminal intimidation by the accused person. Further, PW1, PW2 and PW3 have denied all the suggestions put forwarded by the prosecution. PW1 has deposed that IO made him sign on blank papers. PW1 and PW 2 have specifically stated that the accused person was not part of the quarrel. Therefore, there is nothing on record to connect the accused person with the commission of the offence.
18. Thus, even if the evidence of the hostile witness PW1, PW2 and PW3 is considered partly, there is nothing to implicate the accused person in the present case. As such, even if all the other prosecution witness cited in the list of witnesses were to be examined, the case of the prosecution could not be proved.
19. Furthermore, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. S.L. Goswami vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02 16:50:48 Cr. Case No. 4164/2024 State vs. Shamsher Ali Page 11 of 12 +0530 197 SCC (Crl.) 258 that the accused persons are entitled to benefit of doubt where the onus of proving the ingredients of the offence is not discharged by the prosecution.
19.1. To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of accused person, the prosecution was required to prove the offence under section 323/324/325/506(I) IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The star witnesses of the prosecution i.e., PW1, PW2 and PW3 have turned completely hostile. There is no evidence to link the accused person with the crime charged against him. His identity as culprit is not proved during the trial. Further, the ingredients of the offence are not fulfilled from the material on record. In the present case, as already noted above, the prosecution could not discharge the onus of proving the ingredients of offences in question and thus, the accused person is entitled to benefit of doubt.
20. Resultantly, the accused person namely, SHAMSHER ALI S/o AMIR ALI is hereby found not guilty. He is hereby ACQUITTED of the offences under section 323/324/325/506(I) IPC.
21. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court on 02/04/2026 in the presence of the accused person. The judgment contains 12 pages and each page have been signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.02
16:50:55 +0530
(ANKUR PANGHAL)
JMFC-05, West District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
02/04/2026
Cr. Case No. 4164/2024 State vs. Shamsher Ali Page 12 of 12