Delhi District Court
State vs Naseem, Naeem on 10 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEPAKSHI RANA, JMFC-03
DISTRICT SHAHDARA, KKD, COURT, DELHI
a Serial No. of the case : FIR No. 302/14 PS Welcome
[CR No. 79272/2016]
b Date of the commission of the : 26.05.2014
offence
c Name of the Complainant : Shanu
d Name of Accused person and his : (1) Naseem
parentage and residence S/o Yaseen
R/o H. No. G-393, Janta Colony, Delhi.
(2) Naeem
S/o Yaseen
R/o H. No. G-393, Janta Colony,
Welcome, Delhi
E Offence complained of : 324/34 IPC
F Plea of the Accused and his : Not guilty.
examination (if any)
G Final Order : Acquitted
H Order reserved on : 10.07.2025
I Order pronounced on : 10.07.2025
1.Vide this judgment, the present FIR bearing No. 302/2014 registered with PS Welcome on 27.05.2014 on the statement of Shanu against accused persons shall be decided and disposed off.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION-:
2. A police report in the form of charge-sheet was put up against the accused persons by the State through Station House Officer of PS Welcome on 06.06.2015 alleging that on 26.05.2014 at about 10 PM at Munna Parking Janta Colony, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Welcome, accused persons namely Naseem and Naeem in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused simple injuries on the left and right side thigh of the complainant Shanu with pointed object and thereby committed an offence U/s 324/34 IPC.
FIR No. 302/14 PS Welcome titled as State v. Naseem & Ors. 1/7 Digitally signed DEEPAKSHI by DEEPAKSHI RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.10 04:33:40 +0530 Trial proceedings:-
3. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the court on 06.06.2015 under section 324/34 IPC against the Accused persons whereby Cognizance was taken in this matter on the same day and Accused persons were summoned to appear before the court to face the trial. Upon appearance of the accused persons, copy of challan was supplied to them as per the provisions u/s 207 Cr. PC.
4. After hearing detailed arguments, charges under sections 324/34 IPC were framed upon the Accused persons namely Naseem and Naeem on 21.11.2015, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accordingly, matter was taken up for recording prosecution evidence.
5 In order to bring home the guilt of the Accused, Prosecution has examined 04 witnesses as follows:-
PW1 Shanu
PW2 SI Yujvendra Singh
PW3 ASI Lalit Kumar
PW4 HC Badri Prasad
It is pertinent to note that apart from the said witnesses, five other witnesses have also been mentioned in the list of witnesses filed alongwith chargesheet i.e. the Duty officer who registered the FIR, endorsed the rukka and recorded the DD entry No. 62 B dt. 26.05.2014 and doctors concerned who had prepared the MLC as well as given the opinion on MLC of injured. However, the said five witnesses were dropped from list of witnesses on account of admission of some documents by the accused persons U/s 294 Cr. PC with respect to registration of FIR, endorsed the rukka, recording of DD entries and preparation as well opinion on the MLC of FIR No. 302/14 PS Welcome titled as State v. Naseem & Ors. 2/7 Digitally signed DEEPAKSHI by DEEPAKSHI RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.10 04:33:49 +0530 injured, vide their separate statements dt. 11.07.2024.
It may be noted that the testimonies of PW-2 to PW4 are formal in nature as they are the witnesses to investigation proceedings and the star witness to this case is the complainant who has been examined as PW1.
6. Before proceeding further, in order to identify the documents brought by prosecution on record during evidence, the list of exhibited documents is given in the following table:-
Ex.PW1/A Statement of complainant Ex.PW1/B Site plan prepared by IO Ex.PW1/C Arrest memo of accused Naeem Ex. PW1/D Personal search memo of accused Naeem Ex.PW1/E Arrest memo of accused Naseem Ex.PW1/F Personal search memo of accused Naseem Ex.PW3/A Disclosure statement of accused Naseem
7. On perusal of the record, as well as the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses including the public witness, sufficient evidence was not found against the accused as one prime witness to this case i.e. the complainant, resiled from his previous statement given to the police. Nevertheless, on the basis of the evidence brought by the prosecution against the accused persons, their statement U/s 313 Cr. PC was recorded on 16.12.2024, wherein they denied all the allegations against them and stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant.
Accused Naseem added that the alleged incident never happened. It was just a small scuffle that took place between children and he does not know whether any injury was sustained by the complainant. Nothing as alleged had happened and that he himself went to the PS. Accused Naeem added that he was not present even at the spot. He has FIR No. 302/14 PS Welcome titled as State v. Naseem & Ors. 3/7 Digitally signed DEEPAKSHI by DEEPAKSHI RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.10 04:33:58 +0530 been falsely implicated in the present matter. Nothing as alleged had happened. Lastly, when questioned as to whether they wanted to lead evidence in their defence, they answered in negative.
8. Therefore, the matter was taken up for the hearing of final arguments, which were duly addressed by Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. Submissions heard. Record perused.
9. Ld. APP for the State has pressed upon conviction of the accused stating that clear averments have come against the accused not only in the complaint filed by the complainant with the police but also in his testimony on oath. Ld. APP for the State further argued that merely because complainant has turned hostile in this case, the entire case cannot be discarded as he has been won over by the accused persons outside the court. Ld. APP for the State also argued that even in case of hostile witnesses, the conviction of the accused can be sustained if credible evidence can be made out against them.
Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons has pressed upon acquittal of the accused stating that one public witness who has deposed in this matter i.e. the complainant himself has turned hostile to the prosecution case and thus, no evidence warranting conviction of the accused has been brought on record by the prosecution. It was further argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the duty of the prosecution is to prove the case against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts which the prosecution has failed to do in this case and therefore, accused deserves to be set at liberty from the charges leveled against them. Brief reasons for the decision:-
10. At the outset, before proceeding further on to discussing the weight and relevancy of evidence led by the Prosecution, this court deems it appropriate to first FIR No. 302/14 PS Welcome titled as State v. Naseem & Ors. 4/7 Digitally signed by DEEPAKSHI DEEPAKSHI RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.10 04:34:07 +0530 highlight the cardinal principles of Criminal Jurisprudence, i.e. one, that the Accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty and two, that the burden upon the Prosecution lies to the extent of proving the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, it is incumbent upon the Prosecution to prove all the ingredients which constitute the offence so that all reasonable doubts in the case of the Prosecution are removed. It may be noted that strongest of suspicion upon the Accused, does not lead to the guilt of the Accused. Thus, keeping in view the above stated aspects and principles of criminal jurisprudence this court shall proceed to decide upon the innocence or guilt of the Accused persons.
11. Coming now to the facts of the case, the Prosecution has cited 09 witnesses in the list of witnesses annexed with the charge-sheet. As already mentioned above, out of the aforesaid 09 witnesses, one is public witness i.e. the complainant himself. Rest of the witnesses cited by the Prosecution are formal witnesses who might have played some part during investigation proceedings but are not witnesses to the incident as such and therefore their testimonies have not been able to throw any light on the occurrence of the incident. It is pertinent to note that out of the four witnesses examined in the court, three are police witnesses, however, they have only been able to depose with respect to the registration of FIR in this matter and other documents with respect to the investigation proceedings including arrest and personal search memo of accused persons, site plan etc. Thus, the testimonies of police witnesses i.e. PW-2 to PW-4 have not been able to provide any substantial support to the prosecution case.
12. Moving further, it is vital to mention here that complainant is a prime public witness to this case. To the utter dismay of prosecution, the testimony of complainant has brought in several doubts in the prosecution case. He even has FIR No. 302/14 PS Welcome titled as State v. Naseem & Ors. 5/7 Digitally signed DEEPAKSHI by DEEPAKSHI RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.10 04:34:17 +0530 denied the happening of the incident as such as well as any physical misbehaviour / beating on the part of the accused towards the complainant. 12.1 Complainant has completely been unable to divulge any substantial information with respect to incident in question in his examination in chief. He failed to identify the accused persons in court and also denied the case proceedings in toto. Even after being cross examined by Ld. APP for the State, he could not lend much needed support to the dipping prosecution case. Further he denied the giving of the complaint Ex. PW1/A. Complainant has not supported his case and he denied everything which was written in the complaint. Hence, no credibility can be attached to the statement of the complainant as he has completely turned aside the story put forward by the prosecution.
12.2 Moving further, it is pertinent to note that the police witnesses i.e. PW-2 to PW-4 have deposed in this matter. PW-2 SI Yujvendra Singh deposed that on 26.05.2014, the concerned DO had marked him DD No. 62 B regarding "mujhe chaku Maar diya". Thereafter he alongwith Ct. Lalit reached the spot i.e. Munna Parking Janta Colony. From the public present at the spot, he came to know that the victim had left the GTB hospital by PCR van. Thereafter he alongwith Ct Lalit reached at the hospital to collect the MLC and there they met with victim who was in fit state of mind. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of victim Ex. PW 1/A bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter formal proceedings followed. 12.3 From the above testimonies itself, the case of the prosecution is rendered questionable to the extent that it would be unjust to attach the culpability to the accused.
12.4. Complainant in his Complaint Ex. PW 1/A stated that younger brother of accused Naseem apprehended the complainant from back side and accused FIR No. 302/14 PS Welcome titled as State v. Naseem & Ors. 6/7 Digitally signed by DEEPAKSHI DEEPAKSHI RANA RANA Date:
2025.07.10 04:34:26 +0530 Naseem had taken out some sharp edge object from left pocket of his wearing pant and hit the complainant. IO has not seized the weapon with which the complainant had received the injuries allegedly in the present case. In the absence of weapon, the case of the complainant further stands disputed.
13. From the above held discussion and overview of the evidence brought by the prosecution, it is without any doubt that the prosecution has been unable to bring confirmation of the guilt of Accused persons in the present case. It is already settled in law that the burden upon the prosecution is to bring home the guilt of the accused on the basis of evidence collected during investigation and when the star witness to this case himself speak against the case of the prosecution, there remains no scope of doubt with respect to the lack of sufficient proof by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Moreover, as per the tenets of criminal jurisprudence, benefit of doubt in the case of the prosecution goes to the accused persons.
Conclusion
14. Therefore, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the considered view that the Prosecution has failed to discharge the burden imposed upon it by law of proving the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, Accused Naseem and Naeem are held not guilty and hereby acquitted of the charge framed against them u/s 324/34 IPC in Digitally signed the present case.
DEEPAKSHI by DEEPAKSHI
RANA
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN RANA Date: 2025.07.10
COURT ON 10.07.2025 04:34:36 +0530
(Deepakshi Rana)
JMFC-03, District Shahdara,
Karkardooma Courts/Delhi
[This judgment has been directly typed on computer to dictation] [This judgment contains 07 signed pages] FIR No. 302/14 PS Welcome titled as State v. Naseem & Ors. 7/7