Delhi District Court
State vs Rahish Ahmed on 10 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. TUSHAR GUPTA ACJM, NORTH EAST
DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Rahish Ahmed
CR No. 878/21
FIR No. 132/15
PS: Sonia Vihar
U/s : 325/341/506 IPC
ID number of the case : DLNE02-001461-2021
Date of commission of offence : 26.02.2015
Date of institution of the case : 15.03.2021
Name of the complainant : Har Prashad S/o Gindu Ram
Name of accused and address : Rahish Ahmed S/o Sh. Shakil
Ahmed, R/o G-1/38, Gali no. 3,
5th Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi
Offence complained of : u/s 325/341/506 IPC
Plea of the accused : Not guilty
Final order : Acquittal
Date of judgment : 10.04.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this case bearing FIR no. 132/15 u/s 325/341/506 IPC registered with PS Sonia Vihar shall be decided and disposed FIR No. 132/15 PS Sonia Vihar State Vs. Rahish Ahmed Page No. 1/7 Digitally signed by TUSHAR TUSHAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.04.10 16:30:04 +0530 of.
Factual matrix and trial proceedings
2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on 26.02.2015, at 10:00 AM, at G-1 Block, Gali No. 3, Sonia Vihar, Delhi within jurisdiction of PS Sonia Vihar, accused wrongfully restrained complainant Har Prasad and had beaten him with danda, leg and fist blows and caused grievous injuries on his person and thereafter accused had also threatened to kill the complainant and thereby you have committed offences punishable u/s 325/341/506 IPC.
3. In this background, the legal proceedings in the present case were initiated by the complainant. On his complaint, the present FIR bearing No. 132/15, PS Sonia Vihar, U/S 325/341/506 IPC was lodged. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the court on 15.03.2021 under Section 325/341/506 IPC against the accused.
4. Cognizance in this matter was taken and consequently, the accused was summoned in the court to face the trial. On his appearance in the Court, the copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to him as per norms u/s 207 Cr. P.C.
5. Vide order dated 18.04.2023, a charge was framed against the accused under Section 325/341/506 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was listed for recording of prosecution evidence and complainant was directed to be summoned before the court.
6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PW1 HC Manoj Bhati. He deposed that on 26.02.2015, a quarrel took place at G-Block, Gali No. 1, Sonia Vihar. The injured was initially taken to hospital and later his statement FIR No. 132/15 PS Sonia Vihar State Vs. Rahish Ahmed Page No. 2/7 Digitally signed by TUSHAR TUSHAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.04.10 16:30:11 +0530 i.e. Ex.PW1/A was recorded on 03.03.2015, on the basis of which FIR was registered. He further deposed that during investigation, he prepared the rukka i.e. Ex.PW1/B and conducted investigation. The accused was arrested on 04.03.2015 i.e. Ex.PW1/C, his personal search was conducted i.e. Ex.PW1/D, and his disclosure statement was recorded i.e. Ex.PW1/E and a site plan was prepared i.e. Ex.PW1/G. He further deposed that the accused was released on bail bond i.e. Ex.PW1/F and later the case file was deposited with MHC(R). He further deposed that no independent public witness or CCTV footage was found and the charge-sheet was filed after completion of investigation.
7. However PW/Har Prasad who is complainant in the present case, has expired, hence Complainant/injured Har Prasad was dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses.
8. As has already been stated above, the complainant PW Har Prashad was the main witness and complainant in this matter and PW Har Prasad had already been dropped on account of his death. The remaining witnesses were formal witnesses and hence, vide order dated 16.03.2026, the recording of testimony of said remaining witnesses was dispensed with. Even if the said witnesses would have been examined, they could not have deposed anything with respect to the actual facts of the case as the alleged incident not took place in their presence.
9. In the absence/death of the complainant himself, no incriminating evidence or circumstance could come on record against the accused. Hence, recording of statement of the accused under section 313 Cr. PC. was dispensed with and accordingly, there was no occasion for the accused to lead evidence in his defence. Thus, the matter was taken up for hearing of final arguments.
FIR No. 132/15 PS Sonia Vihar State Vs. Rahish Ahmed Page No. 3/7
Digitally
signed by
TUSHAR
TUSHAR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.04.10
16:30:17
+0530
10. With respect to the above stated trial proceedings in this matter, reference may be made to a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court 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 ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak or there is no prospect of the case ending in 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 on a future date..........."
11. Thus, keeping in view the above said guidelines, this court proceeded to expedite the matter which had been pending in the court since last many years.
Summary of arguments
12. Ld. APP for the State has vehemently argued that the accused be convicted for the offence under Section 325/341/506 IPC with which he has been charged as the said offences are heinous in nature and leaving the accused free without any penalty being imposed upon him would rather make him commit similar offences again.
13. On the other hand, Ld. Defence counsel has strongly opposed the contentions of Ld. APP for the State stating that the accused has been facing trial since long but the prosecution has been unable to bring even an iota of valid evidence against the accused which points out towards the guilt of the accused. It is further argued by the ld. Counsel for the accused that merely FIR No. 132/15 PS Sonia Vihar State Vs. Rahish Ahmed Page No. 4/7 Digitally signed by TUSHAR TUSHAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.04.10 16:30:22 +0530 because the complainant initiated the criminal proceedings against the accused in this matter, he cannot be held liable for it as the complainant Har Prasad himself expired. Thus, Ld. Counsel for the accused has strongly pressed upon setting the accused at liberty by acquitting him.
14. This court has duly heard the rival submissions advanced by the Ld. APP for State and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and has also perused the entire record carefully.
Brief reasons for the decision
15. 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 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. At this stage, this court is also reminded of the ratio laid down by William Blackstone in his seminal work, Commentaries on the Laws of the England [1765s] wherein it was expressed that "it is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer". This ratio also finds it place in the theology of the Indian Criminal Justice System since time immemorial.
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.
FIR No. 132/15 PS Sonia Vihar State Vs. Rahish Ahmed Page No. 5/7
Digitally
signed by
TUSHAR
TUSHAR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.04.10
16:30:29
+0530
16. Coming to the facts of the case, PW complainant Har Prasad is the material witness. Rest of the witnesses cited by the prosecution were formal witnesses, who played some part in the investigation but were not first hand witnesses to the alleged incidents.
17. The material witnesses i.e. complainant Har Prasad as above mentioned, could not be examined by the prosecution since he has expired and PW-1 HC Manoj Bhati is formal in nature. With regard to the remaining witnesses, recording of testimonies of said witnesses had been dispensed with, they being formal witnesses. Further, as no incriminating evidence or circumstance has come on record against the accused hence, recording of statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.PC was dispensed with. Defence evidence also was not required as no incriminatory has been found against the accused.
18. No evidence has come on record from the side of the prosecution and therefore, there remains no scope of doubt that sufficient proof of guilt of the accused has not been brought by the prosecution.
19. This court is of the considered opinion that since the complainant could not be examined by the prosecution due to his death, nothing could come out on the record to prove the alleged incidents or the necessary ingredients of the offence with which the accused was charged. In the absence of any eye witness account as to how the incident has taken pace, accused cannot be fastened with any criminal liability as there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the crime.
Conclusion
20. Therefore, keeping in view the overall conspectus of the 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 FIR No. 132/15 PS Sonia Vihar State Vs. Rahish Ahmed Page No. 6/7 Digitally signed by TUSHAR TUSHAR GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.04.10 16:30:36 +0530 reasonable doubts. Moreover, as per the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, the benefit of doubt in the case of the prosecution goes to the accused. Accordingly, accused Rahish Ahmed is held not guilty and hereby acquitted of the charges framed against him u/s 325/341/506 IPC.
Digitally
signed by
TUSHAR
TUSHAR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.04.10
16:30:43
+0530
Dictated directly into the computer (Tushar Gupta)
and announced in the open Court, ACJM/North East
On 10h April, 2026. KKD Courts/Delhi/10.04.2026 This judgment consists of 07 pages and all bear my signature.
Digitally
signed by
TUSHAR
TUSHAR GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.04.10
16:30:48
+0530
(Tushar Gupta)
ACJM/North East
KKD Courts/Delhi/10.04.2026
FIR No. 132/15 PS Sonia Vihar State Vs. Rahish Ahmed Page No. 7/7