Delhi District Court
State vs Budhsain And Anr on 31 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUKHVINDER KAUR
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
1 CNR No. DLSH010073862022
2. Sessions Case Number 438/2022
3 FIR Number & FIR No.249/2017
Name of the Police Station PS: Seemapuri
4 Name (s) of Accused, 1. Budhsain
Parentage and Address
Age: 40 Years.
S/o Sh. Khem Karan
R/o E-46/D-35, Jain Mandir,
Dilshad Garden, New Seema
Puri, Delhi.
Date of Arrest: 04.05.2017
Date of release on Bail:
11.05.201
2. Lalla @ Shri Ram
Age: 35 Years.
S/o Sh. Khem Karan
R/o E-46/D-35, Jain Mandir,
Dilshad Garden,
New Seemapuri, Delhi.
Date of Arrest: 18.05.2022
Date of release on Bail:
State V/s Budh Sain & Anr. SC No. 438/22 Page 1 of total 17
Digitally signed
by
SUKHVINDER
SUKHVINDER KAUR
KAUR
Date:
2025.07.31
16:25:47 +0530
26.05.2022
5 Date of Committal: 27.11.2021
Commencement of trial On: 06.12.2021
Completion of Trial on 21.05.2025
6 Final Order Acquitted.
7 Service of copy of judgment or -
finding on accused
8 Explanation of delay No Delay
FIR No. : 249/2017
Police Station : Seemapuri
Under Sections : 308/506/195-A/34 IPC
Date on which judgment was reserved : 16.07.2025
Date on which Judgment pronounced : 31.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution is that on 16.04.2017, during emergency duty, on receipt of DD No.4B, dated 16.04.2017, regarding quarrel, ASI Hira Lal and Constable Anuj reached at the spot i.e. Jhuggi Jain Mandir, Dilshad Colony, where they came to know that injured had been removed to GTB hospital by the police. ASI Hira Lal alongwith Constable Anuj reached at GTB Hospital, where they collected the MLC of injured Ganesh Koli. Injured did not give his Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR State V/s Budh Sain & Anr. SC No. 438/22 Page 2 of total 17 KAUR Date:
2025.07.31 16:25:55 +0530 statement as he was suffering with pain. After being discharged from the hospital, the injured reached the police station on the next day where his statement was recorded.
2. The injured in his statement informed that on 15.04.2017 when he was returning to his home from his workplace, at about 11:30 pm when he reached near Jain Mandir, Lalla and Budhsain started giving him beatings and threatened him to tell his mother to withdraw her previous case bearing FIR No.1557/15, under Section 308/452/324/34 IPC, PS Seemapuri, otherwise they would give him more beatings and kill him. Lalla had some knife like object by which he gave blow on his head. He had sustained injuries on his head and face and he became unconscious. His mother had informed the police at 100 number and the PCR van had removed him to GTB Hospital. On the basis of the statement of the complainant and the injuries sustained by him as per MLC, case under Section 308/506/195A/34 IPC was got registered by ASI Hira Lal and further investigation of the case was assigned to SI Rahul Sagar by the SHO.
3. During investigation, SI Rahul Sagar recorded statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.PC and at his instance he also prepared the site plan. Thereafter, on 04.05.2017, SI Rahul Sagar arrested accused Budhsain. He also tried to locate co-accused Lalla, however he could not locate him. Thereafter, further investigation of the case was assigned by the SHO to SI Ravi Poonia on 28.03.2019 and to SI Desh Pal on 26.12.2019. Both of them had tried to find out whereabouts of co-accused Lalla, however they could not succeed. During further investigation by SI Upendra Kumar, on 18.05.2022 on the basis of information by a secret informer, accused Lalla was arrested from his house.
Digitally signedby State V/s Budh Sain & Anr. SC No. 438/22 Page 3 of total 17 SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:
2025.07.31 16:26:03 +0530
4. It is further the case of the prosecution that during investigation, IO/SI Upendra Kumar, who has filed the chargesheet, found that MLC of the injured Ganesh Koli was not on record. During investigation he obtained the certified copy of the MLC of injured and collected the opinion of the doctor on the injuries. The doctor had opined the injuries as 'simple' in nature. During investigation it was also revealed that accused Budhsain and Lalla were also chargesheeted on 11.02.2016 in case FIR No.1557/15, under Section 308/452/324/34 IPC, PS Seemapuri and that case had also been committed to the Sessions Court. The said case was listed for evidence on 03.10.2017. He also deposited the certified copy of the MLC in GTB Hospital for collecting subsequent opinion of the doctor, however the same was not ready. After completion of the investigation, chargesheet under Section 308/506/195-A/34 IPC was prepared and filed in the court.
5. After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C., the concerned Ld. MM vide order dated 29.10.2022 committed the matter to the Ld. Predecessor of this Court for 10.11.2022.
6. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, Ld. predecessor of this Court framed charges for the offences punishable U/s 308/195A/506/34 IPC against both the accused persons on 04.01.2023, to which both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trail.
7. In order to establish its case, prosecution has examined 13 witnesses, who are as under:-
PW No. Name of PW Relevancy Documents
exhibited
PW-1 Sh. Ganesh Complainant/injured Ex.PW1/A
Koli
PW-2 HC Lalit Witness of investigation Ex.PW2/A,
Digitally signed
by
SUKHVINDER
State V/s Budh Sain & Anr. SC No. 438/22 Page 4 of total 17
SUKHVINDER KAUR
KAUR
Date:
2025.07.31
16:26:09 +0530
Ex.PW2/B
& Ex.PW2/C
PW-3 Mithlesh Koli Mother of complainant Nil
PW-4 ASI Udai Pal Duty Officer Ex.PW4/A,
Singh Ex.PW4/B &
Ex.PW4/C.
PW-5 SI Sohan Pal Duty officer Ex.PW5/A.
PW-6 Ct. Vikas Witness of Investigation Ex.PW-6/A
PW-7 Dr. Abhishek, Senior Medical Officer Ex.PW-7/A
Ex.PW-7/B.
PW-8 ASI Ompati Duty Officer of FIR no. Ex.PW-8/A.
1557/15
PW-9 SI Rahul Sagar 1st Investigating Officer Nil
PW-10 Himanshu Asstt. Ahlmad Nil
PW-11 Dr. CCMO of GTB Hospital Ex.PW-11/A
Parmeshwar
Ram
PW-12 HC Anuj Witness of investigation Nil
PW-13 SI Upendra 2nd Investigating Officer Ex.PW-13/A &
Kumar Ex.PW-13/B
8. The detail of the witnesses examined by the prosecution is as under:-
MATERIAL WITNESSES
9. PW-1 Sh. Ganesh Koli (Complainant/Injured) in his testimony has reiterated the contents of his statement recorded by the police. He testified that on 15.04.2017 at about 11:30 pm after his duty hours when he was returning to his house from his workplace and reached Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER State V/s Budh Sain & Anr. SC No. 438/22 Page 5 of total 17 SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:
2025.07.31 16:26:15 +0530 near Jain Mandir, he met accused Lalla and Budhsain. Both of them restrained his way and told him "apni maa se kehkar pichla case FIR No.1557/15 wapas lele" otherwise they would kill him. He told them not to talk to him and say whatever they want in the court. On that accused Lalla hit him on his head with some knife like pointed object. He felt dizzy and fell on the ground. Thereafter, they gave beatings to him and fled away from the spot. Thereafter, his mother came and lifted him. She also called at 100 number to the police. PCR arrived at the spot and took him to GTB Hospital for medical examination. On that day he could not give statement due to pain. On the next day he went to police station and got his statement recorded which is Ex.PW-1/A duly signed by him at point A. He further testified that he had also shown the place of incident to the police and police had prepared site plan Ex.PW-1/B. He identified his signatures on his statement Ex.PW-1/A at point A and identified the accused persons in the court.
PUBLIC WITNESSES
10. PW-3 Smt. Mithlesh Koli, mother of the complainant/injured, testified that on 15.04.2017 when she was working in her house, a boy of the locality came to her and informed that her son Ganesh Koli was lying in Jain Gali in injured condition who was beaten by their neighbourers Budhsain and Lalla. The said place was 100 steps away from her house. She immediately reached there and saw her son lying, having injuries on his face and head and blood was oozing from the injuries. She immediately called police at 100 number. PCR police came and took her son to GTB Hospital, where local police officials came but due to pain her son could not give statement on that day. But on the next day she alongwith her son Ganesh Koli reached at the police station where the police recorded statement of her son and then the case was registered. She further deposed that during deposition to the IO, her son had disclosed the Digitally signed by State V/s Budh Sain & Anr. SC No. 438/22 Page 6 of total 17 SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:
2025.07.31 16:26:21 +0530 fact that he was beaten by Budhsain and Lalla because in the year 2015 both the accused persons were involved in a dacoity case. She and her son were witnesses in the said case and accused persons were pressurizing her and her son to withdraw the said case. She also correctly identified the accused persons in the court.
MEDICAL WITNESSES
11. PW-7 Dr. Abhishek, Senior Medical Officer, GTB Hospital, Delhi deposed that Dr. Javed Alam, who had prepared the MLC, has left the hospital and his current whereabouts were not available. He testified that as per record, patient Ganesh, S/o Sh. Rakesh was brought to the Casualty by ASI Bijender, PCR, with alleged history of assault at around 11:30 pm on 15.04.2017. Dr. Javed Alam examined the patient and prepared his MLC Ex.PW-7/A. He identified the signature of Dr. Javed Alam on the MLC at point A. He further testified that after examination, the patient was referred to Neuro Surgeon for further management. Thereafter, Dr. Amit Gamit opined the nature of injury as 'simple'. He proved the noting of Dr. Amit Gamit on the MLC Ex.PW-7/B at point X to X1.
12. PW-11 Dr. Parmeshwar Ram, CCMO, GTB Hospital, Delhi, testified that on 30.08.2022, he was posted as CCMO at GTB Hospital, Delhi. On that day, a request for subsequent opinion on MLC of Ganesh Koli was moved by IO/SI Upendra in case FIR No.249/17, PS Seemapuri, in their office. The copy of the MLC was also attached with the request letter. He went through the MLC and gave subsequent opinion regarding the injury of victim Ganesh Kohli. As per his opinion, the injury was "CLW over scalp caused by any blunt object". He further testified he had given his opinion on the backside of the request letter. He proved the opinion as Ex.PW-11/A. Digitally signed by State V/s Budh Sain & Anr. SC No. 438/22 Page 7 of total 17 SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:
2025.07.31 16:26:27 +0530 FORMAL WITNESSES
13. PW-4 ASI Udai Pal Sing is the Duty Officer who produced the original FIR and proved the printout of the FIR No.249/17 got registered by him as Ex.PW-4/A. He also proved the endorsement made by him on the original rukka as Ex.PW-4/B. He testified that after registration of FIR, he had handed over copy of the FIR and original tehrir to SI Rahul Sagar. He also proved the certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act issued by him, as Ex.PW-4/C.
14. PW-5 SI Sohan Pal has testified that on 16.04.2017 he was posted as DD Writer / Duty Officer in PS Seemapuri and his duty hours were from 12:00 midnight to 8:00 am. On that day at about 12:08 am, wireless operator informed him in DO Room regarding the quarrel at Jain Mandir Jhuggi. He recorded the said information vide DD No.4B and further informed to ASI Hira Lal. He proved the DD No.4B as Ex.PW-5/A.
15. PW-8 ASI Ompati, (Duty Officer in case FIR No.1557/15) testified that on 12.11.2015, she was posted as Duty Officer in PS Seemapuri and her duty hours were from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm. On that day at about 3:15 pm, Constable Rajeev produced one tehrir before her which was sent by HC Hariom. On the basis of said tehrir, she recorded the FIR bearing No.1557/15. She has proved copy of the FIR as Ex.PW-8/A. She further testified that after registration of the FIR, the investigation of the case was assigned to SI Gaurav.
16. PW-10 Sh. Himanshu, Asst. Ahlmad brought the TCR of the case FIR No.1557/2015, titled State Vs. Lalla & Anr, PS Seemapuri, under Section 307/308/395/397/452/324/34 IPC, and testified that trial of the case is pending in the court of Sh. Raghubir Singh, Ld. ASJ (FTC), Shahdara District, KKD Courts, Delhi and as per record Smt. Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER State V/s Budh Sain & Anr. SC No. 438/22 Page 8 of total 17 SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:
2025.07.31 16:26:32 +0530 Mithilesh, W/o Sh. Rakesh Koli is the complainant in the case. He further testified that charge has been framed in the case against accused Lalla, Budhsain, Ravi and Mukesh on 23.03.2017 under Section 307/308/324/452/34 IPC.
WITNESSES OF INVESTIGATION
17. PW-2 HC Lalit testified that on 04.05.2017 he was posted as Constable at PS Seemapuri and joined investigation of this case with IO/SI Rahul Sagar. At that time accused Budhsain came to the police station. IO formally interrogated the accused and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW-2/A, and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW-2/B. He further testified that thereafter IO recorded disclosure statement Ex.PW2/C of the accused and after medical examination accused was produced before court. He also identified accused Budhsain in the court.
18. PW-6 Constable Vikas testified that on 18.05.2022, he was posted at PS Seemapuri and joined the investigation with IO/SI Upendra. During investigation, IO arrested accused Lalla @ Shriram from his house and prepared arrest memo Ex.PW-6/A, bearing his signature at point A. The witness further testified that the information of arrest of the accused was given to his wife Rekha and then IO recorded his statement.
19. PW-9 SI Rahul Sagar is the 1st IO who testified that on 16.04.2017, he was posted as SI at PS Seemapuri and was assigned the investigation of this case. He received the original rukka, FIR copy, and other documents from the Duty Officer. He went to the spot with complainant Ganesh Kohli, inspected the area, and prepared the site plan Ex.PW-1/B. He recorded supplementary statement of complainant and collected opinion on the MLC of complainant regarding nature of Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER State V/s Budh Sain & Anr. SC No. 438/22 Page 9 of total 17 SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:
2025.07.31 16:26:37 +0530 injuries, which was 'simple' in nature. On 04.05.2017, he arrested accused Budhsain vide arrest memo Ex.PW-2/A, conducted his personal search vide Ex.PW-2/B, and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW-2/C. He searched for accused Lalla but since he was avoiding his arrest, he got his NBWs issued from the court. Thereafter, on 22.02.2019 he was transferred from PS Seemapuri and he had handed over the file to MHCM.
20. PW-12 HC Anuj testified that on the intervening night of 15- 16.04.2017, he was on emergency duty at PS Seemapuri. Upon receiving DD No. 4B dated 16.04.2017, he alongwith ASI Hira Lal went to the spot i.e. Jain Mandir, Jhuggi, Dilshad Colony, where they came to know that the injured had been taken to GTB Hospital.
Thereafter, they went to GTB Hospital, where ASI Hira Lal obtained the MLC of injured Ganesh. IO requested the injured to give his statement, but he refused stating that he would come to the police station later. Thereafter, they returned to the police station, where the IO recorded his statement.
21. PW-13 SI Upendra Kumar is 2nd IO of the case who testified that on 30.04.2020, he was posted as SI at PS Seemapuri and on that day, the case was marked to him. On 18.05.2022, he was present in the police station when a secret informer came and informed him that accused Lalla was at his house and could be apprehended if raided. Thereafter, he alongwith Beat Constable Vikas, reached at accused house i.e. E-46/D-35, H. No. 281, Jain Mandir, Dilshad Colony, at about 09:30 pm. Accused Lalla was present inside the house and on the complainant's identification, he arrested Lalla @ Shri Ram vide arrest memo Ex.PW-6/A, and then conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW-13/A. They brought the accused to the police station, where he Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR State V/s Budh Sain & Anr. SC No. 438/22 Page 10 of total 17 KAUR Date:
2025.07.31 16:26:42 +0530 interrogated him and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW-13/B. Thereafter, accused was sent to lock-up after medical examination and on the next day he was produced before the court from where he was sent to judicial custody. Thereafter, he recorded statements of relevant witnesses. He further deposed that during the perusal of the case, he found that the original MLC of the victim was not on record, so he obtained the certified copy of the MLC alongwith the injury result and obtained the subsequent opinion on the MLC. Thereafter, he prepared the chargesheet and filed it before the court. He correctly identified accused Lalla @ Shri Ram and Budhsain in the court.
22. After closing the prosecution evidence, the statement of both the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded on 28.01.2025, wherein the accused persons either denied the evidence collected against them or they expressed their ignorance about the same. Both the accused persons stated that the witnesses have deposed falsely. They further stated that a false case has been registered against them by complainant Ganesh Kohli, as on the alleged day of the incident, he was under the influence of liquor and he got beaten up by some unknown person from the locality. Due to previous enmity between their family and the complainant's family, he falsely implicated them. The complainant did not give his statement on the alleged day of the incident, and on the next day, after consulting with his mother and other family members, he went to the police station and told a false story regarding his injury, to falsely implicating them in the present case.
23. Both the accused persons did not lead DE and as such the matter was fixed for final arguments.
Digitally ARGUMENTS
signed by
SUKHVINDER
SUKHVINDER KAUR
KAUR Date:
2025.07.31
16:26:48 State V/s Budh Sain & Anr. SC No. 438/22 Page 11 of total 17
+0530
24. Ld. Counsel for accused persons has argued that admittedly there was previous enmity between the parties due to which they have been falsely implicated. There is a delay of nine hours in recording the statement of the complainant, though the complainant was fit for the statement, which is fatal to the prosecution case. He further pointed out contradictions in the testimony of the material witness and the public witness. He further argued that the accused persons were known to the complainant, however the complainant has not disclosed the names of the accused persons to the doctor, and no name has been mentioned even in the DD entry. He further argued that the eye witness, who had informed the mother of the complainant about the incident, has not been examined.
25. Ld. Chief PP for State has strenuously argued that the complainant as well as the public witness have duly supported the case of the prosecution. He further argued that merely because there is previous enmity between the parties cannot be a ground for acquittal of the accused persons since enmity is double edged weapon. He has further argued that merely because the names of the accused persons are not mentioned in the MLC and DD entry, does not lead to an inference that the accused persons have been falsely implicated. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case titled Laddan Vs. (State Govt of NCT) of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No.898/2012, pronounced on 9th December, 2013. He has further argued that the delay in recording the statement of complainant/injured has been duly explained as the witness has deposed that he could not give statement as he was under pain. He emphasized that the injured could be physically in a fit state to give statement to the police however it cannot be said that he was also mentally fit to give the statement at Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER State V/s Budh Sain & Anr. SC No. 438/22 Page 12 of total 17 SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:
2025.07.31 16:26:53 +0530 the time when the police had visited the hospital.
26. Arguments advanced by Ld. Chief PP for State and defence counsel have been duly considered, the record has been meticulously perused.
27. Though, I agree with the contention of Ld. Chief PP for State that previous enmity is a double edged weapon, however to rule out the possibility of false implication, the prosecution is required to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. At the outset, there is doubt about the place where the incident had occurred. As per the testimony of PW-1 the incident had occurred near Jain Mandir while he was on the way back to his house from his workplace. On the contrary, as per the MLC Ex.PW-7/A the alleged history as told by the injured was " physical assault at around 11:30 pm on 15.04.2017 at above given address". The only address given in the MLC is the residential address of the injured i.e. B-35/319, Jhuggi Seemapuri, Jain Mandir, New Delhi. Even as per the DD entry Ex.PW-5/A, the intimation was regarding quarrel in the area of Jain Mandir Jhuggi. It is relevant to mention here that ASI Bijender of PCR who had removed the injured from the spot to hospital has not been cited as a witness though he is a material witness who could have proved where from he had lifted the injured for removing to the hospital.
28. Apart from that there is no whisper in the evidence of any of the witnesses as to who had informed the mother of the injured i.e. PW-3 about the incident which had occurred near Jain Mandir. PW-3 has testified that while she was cleaning the household, one boy of the locality came to her and informed her that her son Ganesh Koli was lying in Jain Gali in injured condition who was beaten by her neighbourers Budhsain and Lalla. In her cross-examination she gave an Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR State V/s Budh Sain & Anr. SC No. 438/22 Page 13 of total 17 KAUR Date:
2025.07.31 16:26:58 +0530 evasive reply in respect of the boy who had informed her. She testified that she did not see the person who came in her house to inform about the beatings to her son Ganesh Koli. If her statement is believed to be correct it is not understandable as to how she deposed that he was the boy from locality. PW-3 categorically deposed that she had called the police at 100 number and mentioned the name of the assailants Budhsain and Lalla, however, the names of the assailants have not been mentioned in the DD entry. She further testified that her son Ganesh had disclosed to the doctor in the hospital that he was injured by Budhsain and Lalla, however there is no whisper in the MLC about the same.
29. It may further be mentioned that PW-1 has categorically deposed that accused Lalla had some knife like pointed object which was hit on his head, whereas as per the subsequent opinion on Ex.PW-11/A, Dr. Parmeshwar Ram, Dy. MS has opined that as per the available record of patient Ganesh, injury mentioned in MLC sheet is CLW over scalp caused by blunt object. Thus, as per the medical evidence the injuries were conduced lacerated wound which cannot be caused by any sharp knife like pointed object, as deposed by injured Ganesh Koli. PW-11 in his cross-examination has also deposed that blunt force injury can be caused if a person falls/his head gets struck with any hard surface or any iron gate. The aforesaid circumstances indicate that the fight could have been occurred in the house of complainant himself and since there was previous enmity with the accused persons, he took benefit of the opportunity and implicated the accused persons.
30. In view of above discussion, I am not convinced with the arguments of Ld. Chief PP for State that the delay giving statement of complainant to the police is well explained especially because the Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR State V/s Budh Sain & Anr. SC No. 438/22 Page 14 of total 17 KAUR Date:
2025.07.31 16:27:03 +0530 injured was fit for statement as per the MLC. As per testimony of PW-12, after obtaining the MLC of injured Ganesh from the GTB Hospital, IO had made request to the injured to give his statement but he denied and said that he will come in the police station and then make his statement to the IO. He has not deposed that the injured was not in a position to give statement due to pain or injured had made any complaint of any pain in his body. In these circumstances, the delay of nine hours in giving the statement is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Hence, the judgment Laddan Vs. (State Govt of NCT) of Delhi (supra) relied upon by Ld. Chief PP is not applicable to the facts of the instant case.
31. Certain contradictions have also emerged from the testimony of PWs. As per the testimony of PW-1 he lost his consciousness after he was given beatings for 3-4 minutes, however from his cross- examination it can be inferred that he was conscious oriented. He has deposed that his mother came to the spot after 2-3 minutes of the incident. PCR van also reached there within 10-12 minutes and he himself sat in the PCR van at the instance of the police. Furthermore, as per the testimony of PW-1, on the next day of the incident he went to the police station and narrated the entire incident to the IO. On the contrary, IO/SI Rahul Sagar testified that the complainant met him for the first time in the hospital and from hospital he alongwith complainant came to police station and then proceeded to the spot. PW-1 has testified that on the next day at about 10:00 am to 11:00 am he went to the police station with his Nani, whereas as per the testimony of PW-3, the mother of injured, on the next day she alongwith her son Ganesh reached PS Seemapuri where the police recorded his statement.
Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER State V/s Budh Sain & Anr. SC No. 438/22 Page 15 of total 17 SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date:
2025.07.31 16:27:08 +0530
32. Though, the contradictions pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons are the minor contradictions and do not go to the root of the prosecution's case, however considering that the very root of the prosecution case is doubtful, the said contradictions cannot be ignored.
33. There are also lapses in the investigation which are material. The investigating agency has not been able to establish the missing link i.e. who had seen and informed the mother of the injured about the incident which allegedly had occurred near Jain Mandir or how the mother of the injured came to know about the incident. ASI Bijender of PCR who is a material witness in respect of place of incident has not been cited as a witness. Weapon of offence has also not been recovered during investigation. There is no investigation in respect of the status of previous case which was got registered by mother of the complainant against the accused persons i.e. if the evidence of mother of the complainant in the said case has already been recorded by the court, which becomes important in view of the motive assigned to the accused persons i.e. the alleged threat given to the injured for telling his mother to withdraw the previous case against them. In the opinion of this court the said part of investigation is important since there could not have any reason for giving threat to the injured for withdrawal of previous case by his mother if the testimony of material witness was already recorded in the said case.
34. Needless to say onus on the prosecution is to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that prosecution has failed to discharge the burden beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, benefit of doubt is given to the accused persons and they are acquitted of offences punishable under Section Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR State V/s Budh Sain & Anr. SC No. 438/22 Page 16 of total 17 Date:
2025.07.31 16:27:12 +0530 308/195-A/506/34 IPC. They are directed to furnish fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount under Section 437-A Cr.PC. Earlier Bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged.Digitally signed
35. File be consigned to Record Room. by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT Date:
2025.07.31 16:27:16 +0530 ON 31st July, 2025 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) Principal District & Sessions Judge Shahdara, KKD Delhi/31.07.2025 It is certified that this judgment contains 17 pages and each page is signed by me. Digitally signed by SUKHVINDER SUKHVINDER KAUR KAUR Date: 2025.07.31 (SUKHVINDER KAUR) 16:27:21 +0530 Principal District & Sessions Judge Shahdara, KKD Delhi/31.07.2025 State V/s Budh Sain & Anr. SC No. 438/22 Page 17 of total 17