Delhi District Court
State vs Shamir @ Bhura on 12 June, 2025
In the Court of Ms. Isra Zaidi: JMFC-04, North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
State Vs. Shamir @Bhura
FIR No. 20/07
U/sec. 353/186/332/34 IPC
PS: Dilshad Garden
Date of institution of the case : 12.07.2007
Date for final arguments: 12.06.2025
Date on which judgment is delivered: 12.06.2025
CNR No. DLNE-02-000177-2007
JUDGMENT
a) Cr. No. of the case : 464585/2015
b) Date of commission of the offence : 16.01.2007
c) Name of the complainant : Ct. Jagdish Prasad
d) Name of the accused and his parentage : 1) Shamir @ Bhura
S/o Jamil Ahmed
2) Akhlak
S/o Jamil Ahmed
e) Offence complained of : Section 353/186/332/34 IPC
f) Offence charged of : Section 332/353/186/34 IPC
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Final order : Acquitted
i) Date of such order : 12.06.2025
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA
Date:
ZAIDI
ZAIDI 2025.06.11
15:52:36
+0800
FIR No.20/07 1/16 State Vs. Shamir @ Bhura etc.
Brief facts of the case
1. Succinctly stated the facts discernible from the present complaint are that on 16.01.2007 Ct. Jagdish Prasad was doing his duty at checking Point, Tahirpur 'T' Point, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. Then the accused Shamir and Akhlak came and obstructed, assaulted and hurt the public servant namely Ct. Jagdish. Thereafter, an FIR against accused Shamir and Akhlak was registered under sections 186/332/353/34 IPC.
Court Proceedings
2. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under sections 353/186/332/34 IPC was filed before the court against the accused persons. The then Learned Magistrate took cognizance on 12.07.2007 and accused persons were summoned to face the trial. On their appearance in the Court, copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to them as per norms. Thereafter, vide order dated 13.09.2010 charge under sections 332/353/186/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was listed for PE.
Prosecution Evidence
3. In order to prove and substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined following witnesses.
Prosecution Witnesses S. No. Witness number Name of the witness
1. PW1 ASI Jagdish Prasad
2. PW2 SI Jainendra Singh
3. PW3 ASI Sudhir Kumar
4. PW4 Ms. Anupama Kaana Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI ZAIDI 2025.06.11 15:52:44 +0800 FIR No.20/07 2/16 State Vs. Shamir @ Bhura etc.
5. PW5 SI/MT Technical Manohar Lal Dhyani
6. PW6 Retd. SI Sheela
7. PW6 Retd. SI Mangej Singh
8. PW7 Dr. Amit Kumar
9. PW8 ASI Daya Ram
10. PW9 SI Sh. Mangej Singh Documents relied upon by the prosecution S. No. Ex./Mark Nature of documents
1. Ex. PW1/A Statement of ASI Jagdish Prasad
2. Ex. PW1/B Seizure memo of scooter
3. Mark-P1 and P2 Photographs of scooter
4. Ex. PW2/A & Ex. Arrest memo of Akhlaq and Sameer PW2/B
5. Ex. PW2/C & Ex. Personal search memo of Akhlaq and PW2/D Sameer
6. Ex. PW1/D Seizure memo of scooter
7. Ex. PW2/E Seizure memo of T-shirt and baniyan
8. Ex. PW6/A Endorsement over rukka
9. Ex. PW6/B FIR
10. Ex. PW6/C Copy of Roznamcha register and DD entry
11. Ex.PW-6/A Rukka
12. Ex.PW-6/B Site plan Statement of the Accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C
4. Both accused stated that they are innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. On the day of alleged incident, Ct. Jagdish was demanding Rs.1,000/- from Shamir @ Bhura for releasing his scooter, when he resisted and objected, he started misbehaving with him and thrown his scooter on the road and broken its head light Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI ZAIDI 2025.06.11 15:52:52 +0800 FIR No.20/07 3/16 State Vs. Shamir @ Bhura etc. and also gave beatings to Shamir @ Bhura. Shamir @ Bhura called Akhlak and when they tried to pacify the matter, Ct. Jagdish made false call to police station and levelled false allegation against them. Ct. Jagdish also caused injuries on his person.
Evidence of the Defence
5. In order to prove and substantiate its case, the accused has examined following witnesses.
Defence Witnesses S. No. Witness number Name of the witness
1. DW1 Sh. Sunil Kumar
2. DW2 Dr. Paremeshwar Ram Documents relied upon by the accused S. No. Ex./Mark Nature of documents
1. Ex. DW1/A (OSR) MLC of accused Sameer @ Bhura Final Arguments
6. The court heard final arguments on behalf of the both the parties on 12.06.2025. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the case against the accused is false and frivolous and has prayed that accused be acquitted of the offence charged. He pointed out various discrepancies in the version of the prosecution witness. Learned APP for the state submitted that accused be convicted of the offences under the above-mentioned sections as there is sufficient evidence on record to convict the accused. This court has heard the submissions of Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. The court has also diligently gone through the charge-sheet, documents, evidence recorded and the entire material on record.
Brief reasons for the just decision of the case:
Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI ZAIDI 2025.06.11 15:53:01 +0800 FIR No.20/07 4/16 State Vs. Shamir @ Bhura etc.
7. In the instant case, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution had to prove the following ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 332/353/186/34 beyond reasonable doubt:
Section 332 IPC:-
"Section 332 IPC provide that "Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
Section 353 IPC:-
"Section 353 IPC provide that "Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person to the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
Section 186 IPC:-
"Section 186 IPC provide that "Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam decided on 28th May, 2013 held as under:-
6. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that 'may be' proved, and something that 'will be proved'. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between `may be' and `must be' is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, the court must maintain the vital distance between mere Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI ZAIDI 2025.06.11 15:53:10 +0800 FIR No.20/07 5/16 State Vs. Shamir @ Bhura etc. conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense. (Vide: Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343; State through CBI v. Mahender Singh Dahiya, AIR 2011 SC 1017; and Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P., AIR 2012 SC 1979)."
9. The rule that every accused person is presumed innocent until he is proved guilty and that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is fundamental to the system of justice practiced in this country and in several other countries. Indeed it is entrenched in the Constitution that every person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent until he is proved or has pleaded guilty.
10. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing 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.
11. The primary question before the court is whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt and
1) Whether the accused voluntarily caused hurt or assaulted a public servant (Section 332 IPC),
2) Whether they used criminal force or assaulted a public servant in discharge of his duty (Section 353 IPC),
3) Whether they obstructed a public servant in discharge of public functions (Section 186 IPC), Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI ZAIDI 2025.06.11 15:53:20 +0800 FIR No.20/07 6/16 State Vs. Shamir @ Bhura etc.
4) Whether the acts were committed in furtherance of common intention (Section 34 IPC).
12. PW1 deposed in his examination in chief that on 16.01.2017 he was posted as a Constable at PS Dilshad Garden. On that day he was on picket duty at Tahirpur, T- Point along with Ct. Charan Singh with duty hours from 9.00 AM to 9.00 PM. He further deposed that on that day at about 12.15 PM accused Shamir came from GTB hospital on scooter without wearing a helmet. He signalled the accused to stop there and asked him to show the relevant documents qua scooter and also asked to why he did not wear the helmet. He further deposed that on hearing this, accused Shamir got annoyed and pushed the scooter on middle of the road. Accused Shamir snatched danda from Ct. Charan Singh and started hitting the scooter. He had broken the head light of the scooter and started raising his voice due to which public persons gathered there. In the meantime, accused Akhlakh reached the spot, scratched his brother Shamir on left shoulder and chest with nails and told public persons that police persons were demanding money and scratched the accused Shamir when he refused to do so. He further deposed that during this quarrel he sustained injuries on his left finger. Thereafter, he called at the PS and ASI Mangesh took him to the hospital for medical examination.
13. In his cross-examination he testified that he made departure entry for the picket duty but did not remember the DD number. He further testified that he did not produce any proof to the IO to show that his duty hours were from 9.00 AM to 9.00 PM. He checked many other vehicles on the day of incident. He admitted that he had not maintained any register of the vehicles checked by him on the day of incident. He was not having any challan book on the day of incident. He had not given to the IO any papers of the vehicles, seized by him on the day of incident. No CCTV camera was installed on the spot. He admitted that public persons had gathered on the spot. He also admitted that he had not produced any witness to the IO in whose presence Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI ZAIDI 2025.06.11 15:53:30 +0800 FIR No.20/07 7/16 State Vs. Shamir @ Bhura etc. the alleged incident took place. He did not give the danda by which the accused had broken the head light of the scooter.. He had not called at 100 number. He admitted that DD No.14A was recorded at the PS on the information given by him. He also admitted that as per DD No.14A he informed to the PS that two Muslim boys were riding on the scooter, whereas he deposed in his examination in chief as well his statement Ex.PW-1/A given to the police that scooter was being driven by one boy namely Akhlakh and the other boy was later on called by him by calling him over phone. It appears to be an embellishment.
14. At this stage it is apt to note the case of Bihari Nath Goswami Vs. Shiv Kumar (2004) 9SCC 186, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "9. Exaggeration per se do not render the evidence brittle but it can be one of the factor to test the credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on touchstone of credibility".
15. He also admitted that in DD No.14A the fact of scooter being pushed by the accused on the road and breaking its head light by giving danda blow was not informed to PS. However, in DD No. 14A per se it is written that accused tried to burn the scooter but his examination in chief is silent on that aspect. It appears to be an omission. He admitted that the MLC of accused was also prepared at GTB hospital as he also sustained injuries.
16. At this stage it is pertinent to note that the case of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (2012)8 SCC the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had the attributes of a sterling witness.
"The court held to test the quality of such a witness the status of a witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant would-be truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be relevant would-be consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely at the time when witness made the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It must be natural and consistent with the case of prosecution qua the accused. There must not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI ZAIDI 2025.06.11 15:53:38 FIR No.20/07 8/16 State Vs. Shamir @ Bhura etc. +0800 should be in a position to withstand the test of cross examination of any length howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give any room for any doubt as to the factum of occurrence, the persons involved and the sequence of it..."
17. The primary witness PW1 (ASI Jagdish Prasad), in his examination-in-chief, stated that Shamir alone was riding the scooter, and accused Akhlak joined later. However, the DD entry recorded at the earliest point in time, states that "two Muslim boys were riding the scooter". This contradiction goes to the root of the prosecution's case and casts doubt on the narrative presented later by PW1.Further, PW1 claimed that Shamir pushed the scooter onto the road, broke its headlight with a danda, and Akhlak arrived and falsely accused the police of harassment. However, these vital allegations are conspicuously missing from both his initial statement to the police (Ex. PW1/A), and the first recorded DD entry (DD No. 14A). PW1 (Complainant) stated in his examination-in-chief that only Shamir was initially riding the scooter, and Akhlak joined later. However, in the initial DD entry it is recorded that two boys were on the scooter. The allegation of attempt to burn the scooter is not reflected in Ex. PW1/A or his examination in chief but only in DD No.14A, raising doubts about the veracity of PW1's later statements. The testimony of PW1 is silent that beatings to him were given by accused persons. He merely deposed that he sustained injury on his left finger during quarrel. This discrepancy is material, as per Rai Sandeep v. State (2012) 8 SCC, which emphasizes consistency from the initial complaint to court testimony as an attribute of a "sterling witness." PW1's testimony fails this test.
18. PW2 deposed in his examination in chief that on 16.01.2007 he was posted at PS Dilshad Garden. He received DD No.14A regarding quarrel with Ct. Jagdish. He handed over DD No.14A to SI Mangesh. He further deposed that he reached GTB hospital where accused met them. PW2 testified in his cross-examination that he received DD No. 14A at about 12.30 PM. He testified that accused persons were not present at the spot when he reached there. He went to hospital with Ct. Jagdish after twenty minutes of reaching at the spot. He did not collect the MLC of accused Samir.
Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI ZAIDI 2025.06.11 15:53:46 +0800 FIR No.20/07 9/16 State Vs. Shamir @ Bhura etc. He did not conduct any inquiry from the accused regarding the incident. He further testified that ASI Mangesh made inquiry from the accused and made disclosure statement. Disclosure statement was not found on record. He could not tell anything regarding the MLC of accused Samir @ Bhura. Public persons had gathered on the spot. No written notice was given to public persons in his presence. He did not know to whom the seal was handed over after its use. He did not remember if IO prepared any seal handling over memo. There was no independent witness to the seizure memo.
19. PW3 deposed in his examination in chief that on 16.01.2007 he received DD No.14A and reached at the spot with HC Jainender. He testified in his cross- examination that he did not see the incident when he reached at the spot.
20. At this stage its pertinent to mention section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 60 of Indian Evidence Act states that oral evidence must be direct. - Oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct; that is to say-
"If it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it;
If it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heart it;
If it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds:
Provided that the opinions of experts expressed in any treatise commonly offered for sale, and the grounds on which such opinions are held, may be proved by the production of such treatises if the author is dead or cannot be found, or has become incapable of giving evidence, or cannot be called as witness without an amount of delay or expense which the court regards as unreasonable:
Provided also that, if oral evidence refers to the existence or condition of any material thing other than a document, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the production of such material thing for its inspection."
21. It is a cardinal principle of law of evidence that oral evidence must be Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI ZAIDI 2025.06.11 15:53:55 +0800 FIR No.20/07 10/16 State Vs. Shamir @ Bhura etc. direct that is it should be given by the person who has actually perceived it. If a person himself did not perceive but heard it from someone then such evidence is not admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. PW3 is not an eye witness.
22. PW4 deposed in her examination in chief on the same lines as PW2. He testified in his cross-examination that accused were not present on the spot when he reached there. No public persons had gathered on the spot. PW2 testified that many public persons were gathered on the spot. There appears to be discrepancies in the version of prosecution witnesses. If the evidence of the sole witness is in conflict with the other witnesses, it may not be safe to make such a statement as a foundation of the conviction of the accused. These are the few principles which the Court has stated consistently and with certainty. Reference in this regard can be made to the case of "Joseph v. State of Kerala (2003) 1 SCC". No public witness was cited, named, or examined. He admitted that in the entire proceeding of this case, there is no public witness and that all the witnesses are police witness. The IO admitted that he asked public persons to join the investigation but none agreed. However, no formal notices was given. The incident happened when many other independent were available. Not even one person who witnessed the incident was made a witness. There is no other independent public witness who could have supported the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant. No other public witness/independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to corroborate the police witnesses. In case of Pradeep Narayan State of Maharashtra AIR 1995 SC 1930 held that failure of police to join witness from locality during search creates doubt about fairness of investigation, benefit of which has to go to the accused.
23. PW5 prepared the mechanical inspection report Ex.PW-5/A. He testified in his cross-examination that fresh damages were found on the scooter. It is pertinent to note that the date of incident was in month of January, 2007 but the mechanical Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI ZAIDI 2025.06.11 15:54:04 FIR No.20/07 11/16 State Vs. Shamir @ Bhura etc. +0800 inspection was conducted on 19.03.2007. PW6 is the Duty Officer who got the FIR registered. He denied the suggestion that FIR is ante time and ante dated.
24. PW Retd. SI Mangesh Singh deposed in his examination in chief that on 16.01.2007 he was posted at PS Dilshad Garden as ASI, On that day, he received information on mobile from DO regarding quarrel with police officials at T-point, Tahir Pur. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Prahlad went to spot where HC Jainender, Ct. Sudhir and Homeguard Charan Singh met them. HC Jainender handed over him DD No. 14A and 15A and told him to take appropriate action as per directions of SHO. One scooter bearing No. DL 3521 was lying at the spot. He came to know that two accused persons and Ct. Jagdish went to GTB Hospital. After sometime, Ct. Jagdish came at the spot and he recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A and he went to GTB hospital where he collected MLC of Ct. Jagdish and Sameer @ Bhura. In the MLC of Sameer @ Bhura was mentioned as self inflicted and MLC of Ct. Jagdish was under observation. He received result of the MLC of complainant which was simple in nature.
25. PW Retd. SI Mangej in the cross-examination testified that he received telephonic information from the duty officer at around 12:42 PM. At that time he was using the mobile number 9868766383. His phone was of Nokia and the same was not a multimedia mobile. He had lodged the departure DD entry when he started patrolling in the area of Janta Flat, GTB Enclave. He admitted that he had not filed on record the DD entry vide which he had started patrolling in the area of Janta Flat, GTB Enclave. He had read the contents of DD No-14A and 15A. He further admitted that as per DD No.14A it was alleged that two boys muslim without helmet were coming on scooter, on being inquired they misbehaved and torn off their cloths and caused self inflicted injuries on their persons, they parked their scooter on the middle of the road and tried to burn it. The attention of the witness was drawn to Ex.PW1/A and on seeing the same the witness stated that it is correct in this statement, it is Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI ZAIDI 2025.06.11 15:54:13 +0800 FIR No.20/07 12/16 State Vs. Shamir @ Bhura etc. mentioned that only one person was coming on scooter, and the other person was allegedly called by him later on. He further admitted that there was no mention of attempt of burning of the scooter by accused-person in Ex.PW1/A as mentioned in DD Nò.14A. He further admitted the fact that accused threw the scooter on the road and snatched the Danda from the hand of Home Guard and damaged the scooter, as mentioned in Ex.PW1/A, is not there in DD No.14A. He did not get the scooter photographed at the spot and did not collect or seize the broken pieces of head light of the scooter. The Danda was not seized by the IO.
26. PW Retd. SI Mangej admitted that he did not seize the Danda by which accused allegedly broke the head light of scooter and that he also did not lift any finger print from the said Danda He denied the suggestion that no such Danda ever used by the accused persons for breaking the head light of the scooter, that is why he did not seize the same or lift any chance print or finger print from the same. He further testified that he had asked 4-5 public persons to join the investigation but none agreed. He did not find any CCTV Camera at or near the spot at that time. He denied the suggestion that CCTV cameras were installed there and he deliberately did not collect the footage of the CCTV camera. Though he had collected the MLC of accused Shamir @ Bhura but he had not filed the same with the charge sheet. He had not cited the doctor concerned as witness in this case who had examined accused Shamir @ Bhura. He had not filed the MLC of accused Shamir @ Bhura by mistake.
27. PW1 also admitted that MLC of accused is not a part of judicial record. He also admitted that MLC of the accused was prepared prior to his MLC. MLC of the accused was prepared prior to his MLC and it was noted as "self-inflicted," yet the same was not filed with the charge sheet. This omission is material and unexplained. Moreover, the MLC of the accused was prepared prior to the MLC this fact admitted by PW1 and PW6. This sequence further casts a shadow of doubt over the prosecution's version, particularly in absence of explanation.
Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI ZAIDI 2025.06.11 15:54:25 +0800 FIR No.20/07 13/16 State Vs. Shamir @ Bhura etc.
28. PW7 deposed in his examination in chief that he was working in GTB Hospital since 2004 till 2008 as senior resident. On 20.01.2007, he examined the surgical records pertaining to MLC No- 00090337 and he gave his opinion regarding the nature of injuries as "simple". His opinion is mentioned at encircle portion at point A on the said MLC. As per PW7 (Dr. Amit Kumar), the injury suffered by PW1 was "simple in nature". He admitted that such injury could be self-inflicted. This admission, along with the fact that the MLC of the complainant was prepared after that of the accused, who also had injuries, raises further reasonable doubt as to the actual aggressors.
29. PW8 SI Daya Ram deposed that he was summoned in the present case. The summoned record pertaining to this case is not available in their office. The record available in their office is with effect from 01.01.2017 as Shahdara Distt. was formed later on and earlier PS Dilshad Garden belonged to North-East Distt. He was not cross-examined despite opportunity given.
30. The accused persons examined two defence witnesses. DW1 Sh. Sunil Kumar, Jr. Assistant, MRD, GTB hospital had brought the MLC Register of GTB hospital containing the MLC of accused Sameer @ Bhura bearing NO. B-201/2007 dated 16.01.2007 Ex.DW-1/A (OSR). In the cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State he testified that as per their records only MLC of accused Sameer @ Bhura was prepared at the GTB hospital.
31. DW2 Dr. Parmeshwar Ram identified the signature of Dr. Hitesh as he had worked under his supervision for one year and he had seen him while writing and signing. The MLC No. B-201/07 Ex.DW-1/A(OSR) was prepared by Dr. Hitesh bearing his signature at point A. In the cross-examination by Ld. APP for the state he admitted that he did not have any personal knowledge about the present case.
Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI ZAIDI 2025.06.11 15:54:34 +0800 FIR No.20/07 14/16 State Vs. Shamir @ Bhura etc.
32. Accused persons stated in their statement under section 313 CrPC that they are innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. On the day of alleged incident, Ct. Jagdish was demanding Rs.1,000/- from Shamir @ Bhura for releasing his scooter and when he resisted and objected, Ct. Jagdish started misbehaving with him and thrown his scooter on the road and broken its head light and also gave beatings to Shamir @ Bhura. Shamir @ Bhura called Akhlak and when they tried to pacify the matter, Ct. Jagdish made false call to police station and levelled false allegation against them. Ct. Jagdish also caused injuries on his person. The fact that the accused examined two defence witnesses and successfully proved their MLCs on record indicates that they have taken a consistent and probable defence. This supports their claim of false implication and raises a reasonable doubt about the prosecution's version.
33. Considering all the above shortcomings including lack of public witness, contradictions in testimonies and documents, failure to produce material evidence, and suppression of crucial medical records, the Court finds that the prosecution has not discharged its burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, standards and precedents, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges under Sections 332/353/186/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
34. It is an adage that law works on the wheels of evidence. Every criminal trial is a journey of discovering and unfolding the truth. But in the present case no sufficient evidence is there on record to warrant the conviction of the accused person. In the case of Prem Singh Yadav Vs. CBI 178 (2011) DLT 529 it was held that where it is possible to have both views one in favor of prosecution and one in favor of accused, the later one should prevail. The prosecution could not prove by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The burden never shifts. An accused enjoys the presumption of innocence. There is no duty on an Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI ZAIDI 15:54:44 2025.06.11 +0800 FIR No.20/07 15/16 State Vs. Shamir @ Bhura etc. accused person to purge himself of guilt. Where there is a lingering doubt, the accused person is given the benefit of the doubt.
35. For the reasons outlined above, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to discharge the heavy burden imposed on it by law of satisfying this court beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.
36. Consequently, accused persons namely Shamir @ Bhura and Akhlak are acquitted in the present case for offence u/s 332/353/186/34 IPC.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court today. Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA Date:
ZAIDI ZAIDI 2025.06.11 15:54:51 +0800 (Isra Zaidi) JMFC-04/NE/KKD/Delhi 12.06.2025 This judgment contains 16 pages and each page bears my signature.
Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA ZAIDI Date:
ZAIDI 2025.06.11
15:54:57
+0800
(Isra Zaidi)
JMFC-04/NE/KKD/Delhi
12.06.2025
FIR No.20/07 16/16 State Vs. Shamir @ Bhura etc.