Delhi District Court
State vs Sanjay Singh@Supari on 17 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARJOT SINGH AUJLA JMFC-11 (SOUTH-
WEST) DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
State Vs Sanjay Singh @
Supari
FIR No : 377/2023
U/s : 324/34 IPC
P.S : Janakpuri
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW020055572024
2. Date of commission of offence : 21.09.2023
3. Date of institution of the case 03.02.2024
4. Name of the complainant Sh. Manoj
5. Name of accused, parentage & 1. Sanjay Singh @ Supari
address S/o Sh. Laxman Singh.
R/o H.No. RZA-133, Gali
no. 16, Sitapuri part Ist
Dabri, New Delhi.
2. Raj Yadav @ Allu
S/o Sh. Ganesh Rai
R/o H.No. RZ-29, Gali
No.-10, Mangal Bazar,
Sitapuri, Dabri, Delhi.
3. Santosh
S/o Sh. Ram Prakash
Passwan,
R/o H.No.RZC-18, Gali
no. 12, Sitapuri Dabri,
Delhi.
6. Offence complained of 324/34 IPC
7. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
HARJOT
8. Final order Acquittal SINGH
9. Date of final order 17.03.2026 Digitally signed by
HARJOT SINGH
Date: 2026.03.17
17:35:00 +0530
FIR No. 377/2023
PS Janakpuri State vs. Sanjay Singh & Ors. Page 1 of 7
Argued by: - Ld. APP for the State .
Sh. Ilhaq Ahmad, Ld. Counsel for all accused.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 21.09.2023, at about 6:45 PM near Dabri Metro Station, Gate no.1, Pankha road, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Janakpuri, all accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, gave beatings to the complainant namely, Manoj and also attacked him with a sharp weapon and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 324/34 IPC for which FIR no.377/2023 was registered at the police station Janakpuri, New Delhi.
INVESTIGATION, APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED AND CHARGE
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the charge-sheet against the accused persons was filed. The Court took the cognizance against the accused persons and summons were issued to the accused persons. On their appearance, a copy of the charge-sheet was supplied to accused persons in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC") (now section 230 BNSS). On finding a prima facie case against the accused persons, charge under Sections 324/34 IPC was framed against them on 07.08.2024. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused persons to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
FIR No. 377/2023 HARJOT
SINGH
PS Janakpuri State vs. Sanjay Singh & Ors. Page 2 of 7
Digitally signed
by HARJOT
SINGH
Date: 2026.03.17
17:35:07 +0530
ORAL EVIDENCE
PW-1 Manoj
PW-2 ASI Ram Chander
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex. PW 1/A Site plan
Ex. PW 1/B Complaint given by complainant Sh. Manoj.
Ex. PW 2/A Arrest memo of accused Raj Yadav
Ex. PW 2/B Personal bonds of accused Raj Yadav
Ex. PW 2/C Arrest memo of accused Santosh
Ex. PW 2/D Personal bond of accused Santosh
Ex. PW 2/E MLC bearing no. 8600 dated 21.09.2023
4. To prove its case, prosecution examined (02) witnesses, the same are as follows:
PROSECUTION WITNESSES
5. Prosecution examined Manoj as PW1. His version is reproduced as under:-
"I work as an e-rickshaw driver. In the year 2023, at about 5 PM, at Dabri metro gate no.1, I had a dispute with 5 to 7 people regarding giving money to stay at the place and placing e-rickshaw for passengers. During the scuffle, one person attacked me with some sharp weapon on the left side of my chest. However, I could not see who was that person as crowd gathered at the spot of incident. After that, I called at 100 number. The police came at the spot and taken me to the DDU hospital. The police official had inquired me about the incident. IO had also recorded my statement. I had shown the place of incident to the IO. The site plan in respect of the same was prepared by the IO on my instance. Same is now Ex. PW 1/A bearing my signature at point A. I had given my complaint to the police. Same is Ex. PW 1/B bearing my signature at point A. I cannot identify the persons with whom I had dispute on that day. Ld. APP for the State sought permission of the Court to cross-
HARJOT SINGH FIR No. 377/2023 Page 3 of 7 Digitally signed PS Janakpuri State vs. Sanjay Singh & Ors. by HARJOT SINGH Date: 2026.03.17 17:35:13 +0530 examine the witness as he is resiling from his previous statement. The cross- examination is reproduced as:-
"It is correct that the incident took place on 21.09.2023 at about 6:45 PM. I am confused about the exact time of the incident. According to me it was between 5 to 7 PM. It is wrong to suggest that the dispute arose with regard to taking passengers in the e-rickshaw.
At this stage witness is confronted with his complaint Ex.PW1/B from point A to A1 to which the witness states that it was not the case and this is a lie. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely in order to save the accused persons. It is correct that the persons with whom dispute took place were also e-rickshaw drivers and they were three in numbers. It is correct that one of those three persons had attacked me with a sharp object. It is correct that in my complaint I had mentioned the name of two of those persons with whom I had scuffle, one of them was Raj Yadav @ Aalu and the other was Santosh and further stated that I can identify the third person. However, the witness deposed that none of those three persons are present in the court today. It is wrong to suggest that I am deliberately not identifying the accused persons as I have been threatened by them. It is correct that all the three accused persons drive e- rickshaw near Pankha road. It is wrong to suggest that I am deliberately hiding the identity of all the accused persons as they are e-rickshaw drivers in the area where I drive my e-rickshaw, hence, I have risk of my life from them. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely as I have been won over by the accused persons".
6. Prosecution examined ASI Ram Chander as PW2. His version is reproduced as under:
"On 22.10.2023, I was posted at PS Janakpuri as ASI. The present was marked to me on the same day. During the investigation, I collected the HARJOT FIR No. 377/2023 SINGH PS Janakpuri State vs. Sanjay Singh & Ors. Page 4 of 7 Digitally signed by HARJOT SINGH Date: 2026.03.17 17:35:18 +0530 ossification test against CCL Raj Yadav @ Allu and placed it on the record. Same is now marked as Mark Z1 (colly). As per the ossification, he was found aged at around 22 years old.
Thereafter, I arrested the accused Raj Yadav vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A bearing my signatures at point A from his home, released him on personal bond Ex.PW2/B bearing my signatures at point A. On the same day, I also arrested accused Santosh vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/C bearing my signatures at point A as his address was disclosed by the accused Raj Yadav, released him on personal bond Ex.PW2/D bearing my signatures at point A. I also collected the final opinion regarding the injury from DDU hospital on MLC bearing no. 8600 dt. 21.09.2023 Ex.PW2/E final opinion is mentioned at point A and placed it on the record.
During the investigation, I also recorded statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.PC. I can identify the accused person, if shown to me. At this stage, Ld. counsel for accused submits that Identity of the accused persons are not disputed as the witness is IO of the case ".
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE
7. There was no incriminating evidence against the accused persons. Therefore, requirement of recording of statement of accused persons u/s 351 BNSS (earlier Section 313 CrPC) was dispensed with vide order date 05.01.2026.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
8. Matter was listed for final arguments. During the course of arguments, learned APP for the State navigated the attention of the Court to the facts of the instant case and the evidence brought forth by the prosecution. Ld. APP for State argued that the prosecution has discharged its burden beyond FIR No. 377/2023 HARJOT PS Janakpuri State vs. Sanjay Singh & Ors. Page 5 of 7 SINGH Digitally signed by HARJOT SINGH Date: 2026.03.17 17:35:23 +0530 reasonable doubt and accused persons shall be convicted for the offence charged with. Per-contra, Ld. counsel for accused persons argued that the complainant is the key witness in the present case and he has failed to identify the accused persons. It is further argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present matter and deserves to be acquitted.
9. I have heard learned APP for the State and Ld. counsel for the accused persons, perused the material placed on record and considered the submissions advanced.
INGREDIENTS / APPRECIATION
10. To bring home a charge under Section 324 IPC, the prosecution is required to establish that the accused voluntarily caused hurt to the victim by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or by any weapon or means likely to cause death, or by fire, heated substance, poison, corrosive substance, or any other dangerous weapon or means, and that such act was done with the requisite intention or knowledge. Further, to attract Section 34 IPC, it must be shown that the criminal act was done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention, thereby rendering each of them vicariously liable for the act done.
11. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The sole material witness i.e. the complainant/injured, who was the only eye witness to the alleged incident, did not support the case of the prosecution during trial and failed to identify the accused persons in Court. Despite being cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the State after being declared hostile, nothing incriminating could be elicited from his testimony so as to connect the accused with the commission of the alleged offence. In the absence FIR No. 377/2023 HARJOT SINGH PS Janakpuri State vs. Sanjay Singh & Ors. Page 6 of 7 Digitally signed by HARJOT SINGH Date: 2026.03.17 17:35:29 +0530 of any other corroborative evidence and the testimony of the star witness having lost its evidentiary value on the aspect of identity, the prosecution case suffers from a serious lacuna. Accordingly, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused persons, and they are hereby acquitted of the charges under Section 324/34 IPC.
12. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
HARJOT
HARJOT SINGH
Announced in the open Court SINGH Date:
2026.03.17
17:35:35
+0530
on 17.03.2026 in the presence
of the accused. (Harjot Singh Aujla)
JMFC-11, South West
Dwarka, Delhi / 17.03.2026
Note: - This judgment contains 07 pages and each page has been signed by me.
Digitally signed by HARJOT HARJOT SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.03.17 17:35:41 +0530 (Harjot Singh Aujla) JMFC-11, South West Dwarka, Delhi /17.03.2026 FIR No. 377/2023 PS Janakpuri State vs. Sanjay Singh & Ors. Page 7 of 7