Delhi District Court
State vs Amit Sharma on 30 March, 2026
Digitally
signed by
VINOD
VINOD KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2026.03.30
16:26:39
IN THE COURT OF VINOD KUMAR: +0630
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS- 05 (SOUTH WEST)
DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Amit Sharma and others
FIR No : 87/20
U/s : 323/341/427/509/34 IPC
P.S. : Vikas Puri
JUDGMENT
1. Criminal Case No. : 6815/2020
2. Date of commission of offence : 16.02.2020
3. Date of institution of the case : 09.10.2020
4. Name of the complainant : Smt. Bithu Roy (through State)
5. Name of accused & parentage : 1. Amit Sharma S/o Sh. Ashok Sharma
2. Dimpy W/o Sh. Amit Sharma
3. Satpal Sharma S/o Sh. Gurdass Sharma
6. Offense complained or proved : U/s 323/341/427/509/34 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved: 19.03.2026
9. Final order : All accused persons are acquitted.
10. Date of final order : 30.03.2026
FIR No.87/2020 P.S. Vikas Puri State Vs. Amit Sharm & Ors. Page 1 of 15
1. The accused persons are facing trial for offences u/s 323/341/427/509/34 IPC. The genesis of prosecution story is that on 16.02.2020 at about 11:00 am in front of House no. JG 2/164, Vikas Puri, Delhi all accused persons in furtherance of their common intention entered into an altercation with complainant Smt Bitthu Roy and during the course of which, all accused persons first gave beatings to her leading to suffering of simple injuries by her and thereafter all accused persons also hurled filthy abuses on the complainant and accused Dimpy even committed act of mischief by breaking the mobile phone of complainant. After completion of the investigation, the present charge-sheet was filed for conducting trial of the accused for the alleged offences.
2. After taking cognizance of the offences, the copies of charge-sheet were supplied to accused persons in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. The arguments on charges were heard and charges for offences u/s 323/341/509/34 IPC were framed against all the accused perrons and charges of offence u/s 427 IPC were also framed against accused Dimpy. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed and trial. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was led.
3. In order to establish guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined four witnesses in all. The accused persons vide their statement u/s 294 Cr. PC also admitted the DD no. 015A and 024A both dated 16.02.2020, MLC no. 1617 which were Ex. AD1 to Ex. AD-2 respectively. In view of the admission of the aforesaid documents by the accused persons, the examination of the witnesses with respect to such documents was dispensed with. After the completion of prosecution evidence, PE was closed and statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr. PC were recorded. The accused persons did not lead defence evidence. Final arguments were advanced.
4. During the course of arguments, Ld. APP for State has argued that the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and their testimonies FIR No.87/2020 P.S. Vikas Puri State Vs. Amit Sharm & Ors. Page 2 of 15 have remained unrebutted. It has further been argued that on combined reading of testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses, offences u/s 323/341/427/509/34 IPC have been proved beyond doubt.
5. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused persons have argued that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused persons and that the accused persons have been falsely implicated by the police officials at the behest of complainant. It has also been argued on behalf of accused persons that there was an enmity between the complainant and accused persons due to some previous incident of an altercation between them and due to such grudges, he has falsely implicated them in the present case. It is further argued that due to lacunae and incoherency in the story of the prosecution, accused persons be given benefit of doubt and are therefore entitled to be acquitted.
6. Prior to delving into the merits of the contentions advanced on behalf of parties, let us briefly discuss the testimonies of the material prosecution wit- nesses.
(i). PW-1 Smt Bithu Roy is the complainant who deposed that she was residing at the first floor of the house whereas the accused persons were residing at the second floor. She further deposed that on that day, while she was at her house, she received a call from her friend that she should go in a park after taking meal, and at about 10:30 am, she saw the plastic shed was burning and when she shouted as to what was happening with the shed, the accused persons along with one Mayank and one Achita came to her gate. She further deposed that when she came out of her house, the accused Dimpy was standing at the staircase caught hold of her and took her phone from her hands and smashed the phone to the ground. She further deposed that thereafter accused persons started beating her.
She further deposed that accused Dimpy caught hold of her hairs and started pulling her on the ground and during this scuffle, her gold chain had also gone missing. She further deposed that thereafter she took phone from one of the pub-
FIR No.87/2020 P.S. Vikas Puri State Vs. Amit Sharm & Ors. Page 3 of 15lic person who had gathered and called the police and thereafter police came at the spot and took her to the hospital. She further deposed that the police took her statement after one or two days as she was not in a condition to give statement on the date of incident. She further deposed that police officials prepared the site plan and seized the mobile phone. She further deposed that accused was arrested in her presence vide arrest memo . Thereafter the police took her further state- ment. Witness correctly identified the accused persons and case property in Court.
The Witness was asked leading question with the permission of the Court, as she was not disclosing complete facts as alleged in her statement made to the police. During cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, she admitted that the accused Satpal all of a sudden attacked her and started beating her and was saying ''tu mujh per case karegi''. She admitted that accused Dimpy had caught hold of her hairs, however, she did not remember who was the second person who was pulling her from her hairs on the ground. She further deposed that during scuffle, the blood was oozing from her mouth and the mother of accused namely Sushila put cloth in her mouth so that she could not shout and also accused Dimpy hit her in her back from her leg.
During cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, she deposed that she is residing at the aforesaid address from last ten years and know the accused persons as they were her neighbours and residing in the above floor of the building. She further stated that accused Dimpy and Amit lived in another block of the same vicinity. She further deposed that the incident took place on 16.02.2020 and she came out of her house after hearing the shouting and filthy language used by the accused persons in regard to her and her daughter. She further stated that the accused persons had burned the shed of balcony of her house and started abusing her to which she came out and they started beating her. She further deposed that one Sushila and accused Satpal pushed her inside the home and started to beat and push her down on the floor and she fell down on the floor on her face however she did not sustain any injury and accused Satpal had snatched her gold chain. She further deposed that Sushila and accused Satpal FIR No.87/2020 P.S. Vikas Puri State Vs. Amit Sharm & Ors. Page 4 of 15 were accompanied with two unknown person and accused Dimpy and two unknown person started to call "Papa Papa" to Satpal and asked him to come out. She further stated that the two unknown persons were male and all the said persons came out of the house and ran after the said person for her gold chain. She further stated that she stepped down two three stairs down from her floor and she found accused Dimpy three four steps down the stairs from her floor. She asked Dimpy about her chain and she warned her that she will call police. She further deposed that she got upset on this, accused Dimply torn her hairs and put her down on her face on the stairs and dragged her down two three steps down the stairs and did not sustain any injury from the said circumstances. She further deposed that a civil dispute is pending before a Ld. Civil Judge that has been filed by her against accused persons. She further stated that the bone of contention between her and Sushila is that when she purchased a flat, Sushila asked her for the commission but as she refused to pay commission, Sushila started to take revenge from her. She further stated that the two children of accused Dimpy namely Mayank and Akshita were standing there and they also hit her hard from the leg blows, hit her head to the wall but she had not sustained any injury. She further stated that accused Dimpy snatched her phone and smashed it on the ground. She further stated that the children of Dimpy were playing football with her phone and she took the phone of one of her neighbours to call the police but she did not recall who he or she was. She further deposed that the police came and took her to the hospital but she could not give the statement to the police officials as she was in severe pain and trauma. She further stated that after two- three days, police officials came to her house for recording her statement but they did not write all and every facts which were stated by her. She further stated that the police official even read out the contents of the statement made by her but she could not gather whether they wrote everything according to her statement. She further stated that the police official missed to write the fact that her gold chain had been snatched. She further deposed that after this incident she was called by the police for making statement and the same was recorded and she had not made any complaint with respect to the point that any averment was missing in her FIR No.87/2020 P.S. Vikas Puri State Vs. Amit Sharm & Ors. Page 5 of 15 statement given to police official. She further stated that Civil Suit was filed earlier to this complaint and the civil case was pertaining to seepage issue where the court had appointed a LC and the LC had made a report that the seepage do exist due to poor structure of building but the seepage had not been caused by Sushila and Satpal. She further stated that she had stated that a plastic shed was "burning in her balcony, blood was oozing from her mouth and Sushil put cloth in her mouth. " however, you same has not said so in her statement made to the police i.e Ex. PW 1/A. She further stated that the fact regarding the burning of plastic shed and blood was oozing from her mouth and Sushil put cloth in my my mouth was not mentioned by the police in recording of her complaint. She further stated that the neighbours have not made any statement to police as they are scared of consequence of giving statement against the accused persons. She denied that she had filed a false case in order to take revenge from the accused persons as LC report had come against her.
(ii). PW-2 ASI Anil Kumar was the duty officer who has proved the rukka vide Ex. PW 2/A and endorsement on rukka vide Ex. PW 2/B. He also proved certifi- cate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act vide Ex. PW 2/C .
(iii) PW-3 SI Mangal Ram was the IO and deposed that on 16.02.2020, he was posted at PS Vikas Puri as SI and on that day he received DD no.15 A regarding a quarrel at JG II / 164 Vikas Puri, New Delhi and thereafter he along with Ct. Sube went to the spot and there they came to know from public person that one lady has been injured and she has been taken to unknown hospital. Thereafter he re- ceived DD no. 24 A qua MLC no. 1617/20 from DDU Hospital. He further de- posed that after that they went to DDU Hospital and thereafter receiving the MLC from the hospital, they met PW-1/Complainant Bitthu Rai but she denied giving statement at that time and asked us that she will visit PS and there she will give her statement. He further deposed that on 21.02.2020, in the morning PW-1/Com- plainant Bitthu Rai gave her statement and on the complaint he prepared rukka Ex. PW 3/A and handed over to DO for registration of FIR. He further deposed that no CCTV Camera was installed near the spot and at the instance of com-
FIR No.87/2020 P.S. Vikas Puri State Vs. Amit Sharm & Ors. Page 6 of 15plainant, he prepared site plan on the spot. He further deposed that complainant also produced one broken mobile phone and same was seized vide seizure memo bearing his signatures. He further deposed that accused Amit Sharma was arrested and personal search of accused was conducted and accused Amit Sharma was re- leased on bail bond and thereafter, he recorded supplementary statement of com- plainant u/s 161 Cr. PC and accused persons namely Dimpy and Satpal were not present at home. Thereafter he came back to PS and recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr. PC. He further deposed that on the very next day he gave notices u/s 41A Cr PC to accused persons namely Dimpy and Satpal and after medical opinion of MLC was found to be simple. Thereafter he prepared the charge sheet and filed it before the court. The witness correctly identified all ac- cused persons in Court.
During cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he deposed that the incident occurred on 16.02.2020 and got the information about the incident through PCR Call and did not remember the time of PCR call. He further stated that he did not remember the name of PCR caller. He further stated that he did not remember whether the call was made by the complainant herself or not. He fur- ther stated that he along with PW-4 Ct. Sube Singh reached at the spot and there- after went to DDU Hospital and the injuries suffered by the victim were opined as UO Blunt. He further deposed that the complaint was received at around 11:00 am and the FIR was registered on 21.02.2020 and the delay took place in registra- tion of FIR as the victim did not give the statement until 21.02.2020. He further stated that the statement of victim was recorded at the PS and no notice was served upon the victim when she was called to PS and only telephonic call was made to her and did not remember about the number of victim on which he had made telephonic call. He further deposed that the statement of PW-1/complainant Smt Bithu Roy that her statement was taken by police after 1-2 days from the in- cident, was false and deposed that her statement was recorded on 21.02.2020 it- self. He further deposed that the mobile phone of complainant was not sent to FSL. He denied that the mobile phone given to her by complainant was not the FIR No.87/2020 P.S. Vikas Puri State Vs. Amit Sharm & Ors. Page 7 of 15 same that pertained to the incident. He admitted that the spot of incident is lo- cated in a residential area and deposed that he did not find any CCTV Camera available at or near the vicinity of the incident. He further deposed that he asked the persons from neighbourhood to join the investigation but none agreed for the same and he had not served notice upon any public persons from neighbourhood during the investigation. He further deposed that had prepared site plan on 21.02.2020 itself. He denied that he had not prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant or that same was not prepared at the spot. He denied that he was informed by the persons from neighbourhood that altercation had taken place be- tween complainant and accused persons previously also. He further stated that he did not know whether any other cases were registered in PS Vikas Puri at the be- hest of complainant or accused persons against each other prior to the alleged in- cident. He further deposed that he was not aware about any civil case pending be- tween the parties. He denied that he was well aware about the history of disputes and litigation between the parties or that the present case was registered at the be- hest of complainant falsely so as to give strength to the civil case filed by the complainant. He further stated that the allegations of complainant regarding the breaking of the chain belonging to her remained unsubstantiated during investiga- tion. He further deposed that the complainant also failed to provide any bills/ in- voice of the said gold chain nor she could give any details regarding the descrip- tion of the same and was not aware as to whether any subsequent litigation took place between the parties after the alleged incident. He further deposed that the statement of complainant was recorded by him in his own handwriting. He further stated that the complainant narrated her version to him in Hindi language. He fur- ther deposed that the statement of complainant was read over to her and thereafter she signed the same and he recorded the entire and complete version of the com- plainant in her statement. He denied that the entire proceedings of the case were concocted belatedly to falsely implicate the accused. He denied that no incrimi- nating evidences surfaced against the accused persons during the course of inves- tigation conducted by him or that he had falsely implicated the accused persons at the instance of complainant. He denied that he is unable to disclose about phone FIR No.87/2020 P.S. Vikas Puri State Vs. Amit Sharm & Ors. Page 8 of 15 number of the victim as in fact no call was made by him to the victim for calling her to PS or that the victim was not having any mobile phone at that time as same was allegedly broken during the incident dated 16.02.2020.
(iv) PW 4 Sube Singh deposed that on 16.02.2020, he was posted at PS Vikas Puri as Ct and on that day he along with PW-3 SI Mangal Ram went to the spot where they came to know that the injured has been sifted to the hospital by PCR and thereafter, on receipt of DD no. 24 A received from the DDU Hospital, he along with SI Mangal Ram went to DDU Hospital where they met injured PW- 1/Complainant Smt Bithu Roy and PW-3 SI Mangal Ram collected the MLC from concerned doctor and asked the complainant to give statement however wit- ness refused to give the statement at that time and thereafter they returned back to PS. He further deposed that thereafter on 21.02.2020 complainant came to PS where PW-3 SI Mangal Ram recorded her statement, prepared tehrir / rukka and got the present case FIR registered and thereafter he along with PW-3 SI Managl Ram and complainant went to the spot where PW-3 SI Mangal Ram prepared site plan at the instance of complainant, arrested accused Amit Sharma, conducted his personal search and released him on furnishing bail bonds and PW-3 SI Mangal Ram also served notice u/s 41 A Cr. PC upon accused Satpal and Dimpy and his statement u/s 161 Cr. PC was recorded. The witness correctly identified all ac- cused persons in Court.
During is cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he deposed that site plan, arrest memo, personal search memo, notice u/s 41A does not bear his signature. He denied the suggestion that he never visited the spot with PW-3 SI Mangal Ram
7. I have heard the rival contentions advanced by the prosecution and defence and have also gone through the case record carefully. Having discussed the testi- monies of the prosecution witnesses, now let us advert ourselves to the merits of the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties.
8. The careful perusal of the case record would reflect that in order to establish FIR No.87/2020 P.S. Vikas Puri State Vs. Amit Sharm & Ors. Page 9 of 15 the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution is primarily relying upon the testimony of complainant/PW-1 Smt Bitthu Roy. It has been asserted on behalf of accused persons that the complainant has falsely implicated the accused persons in the present case as he was having an enmity against them due to the reasons that some altercation had taken place between them previously, for which the complainant has entertained the grudges against the accused persons. The careful perusal of the complaint Ex. PW 1/A would reflect that in such complaint, the complainant has narrated that the accused persons attacked her and caught hold of her. However, during the course of her deposition, complainant/PW-1 has made some considerable improvements in her version.
9. Perusal of statement dated 21.02.2020 of PW-1/Complainant Smt. Bittu Roy, which was duly proved vide Ex.PW-1/A and on the basis of the which the instant FIR was registered, shows that the complainant and complained that on 16.02.2020, the accused Satpal Sharma physically assaulted her and when she tried to run from clutches of accused Satpal Sharma, accused Dimply and her hus- band accused Amit Sharma caught her and all three accused persons gave beating to the complainant. It is also averred in the aforesaid complaint that accused Dim- ply snatched the mobile phone of the complainant out of her hands and thrashed it on the road. It is also alleged in the aforesaid complaint that the accused Dimply and her husband accused Amit Sharma dragged the complaint by her hairs. A pe- rusal of testimony of PW-1/Complainant Smt. Bittu Roy shows that she has de- posed that on that day, the accused persons had burned the shed of the balcony of her house and started abusing her and consequently, she came out and then the ac- cused persons started beating her. The fact of burning of shed of the balcony of the house is a material fact which is absent in the complaint made to the police. Moreover, on careful perusal of testimony of complaint, it emerges that she did not disclose about the fact that accused Satpal had attacked or that accused Dimpy caught hold of her hairs. As regard to these facts, whatever the material on record has emerged is on the basis of suggestions put by Ld. APP for the State. She could not even remember as to what the other person allegedly pulling her FIR No.87/2020 P.S. Vikas Puri State Vs. Amit Sharm & Ors. Page 10 of 15 hair alognwith accused Dimpy whereas in her complaint, she has stated that hus- band of the accused Dimply i.e. accused Amit Sharma along with accused Dimpy dragged her by her hairs.
10. Pertinently, the complainant/PW-1 also stated that she was attacked by accused persons appears to be highly improvised and misplaced. The aforesaid facts were never narrated by the complainant in her initial statement nor the deposition of any other material prosecution witness including IO finds mention of such facts. Further, the fact that the complainant herself admitted during her deposition that accused persons attacked her, appears to be a concocted one. Further, the complainant/PW-1 has also made a candid admission during her deposition that material contradictions which have surfaced in the testimony of PW-1, this Court is of the considered view that the said testimony of complainant does not fall within the category of reliable evidence and therefore, same cannot be believed in its entirety to bring home the guilt of accused persons for the alleged offences. The reasons for drawing such inferences also gain strength from the fact that at the time when the incident took place, the complainant as per her own admission and thus, the possibility that the incident took place due to a provocation made by the complainant herself to accused persons or in other words that the complainant herself was an aggressor who perpetuated the occurrence of incident, cannot be completely ruled out. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also taking into account about the factum of previous history of disputes/hostility between the complainant and accused persons, it would be highly unsafe to act on the basis of sole testimony of the complainant without any corroboration from the other independent evidences.
11. Further perusal of case records show that the alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 16.02.2020 but the complaint was made to the police on 21.02.2020. It is stated by the complainant that she was in severe pain and trauma and hence the complaint could not be given on the same day and after 02-03 days, some po- lice official came to her house to record her statement whereas perusal of testi-
FIR No.87/2020 P.S. Vikas Puri State Vs. Amit Sharm & Ors. Page 11 of 15mony of PW-3/IO SI Mangal Ram shows that the he denied the deposition of the complaint and deposed that the complainant herself came to the police station for recording of complaint on 21.02.2020 i.e. 05 days after the date of alleged inci- dent. Thus, there is material inconsistencies in the statement of these two major Prosecution witness which hit at the core of the prosecution case. Moreover, even if the statement of the complaint is taken that she could not give statement on the date of incident as she was in severe pain and trauma, perusal of MLC of the complaint shows that the nature of injuries suffered does not sufficiently explain a delay of about 05 days from the date of incident and tendering of complaint to the police. Moreover, the perusal of MLC shows the injuries suffered by complainant were simple blunt injuries which does not corroborate the version of the com- plainant as given to the police. She further deposed that though police official came to her house to record her statement but they could not write all the aspects of the incident as told by her to them. However, the complainant cannot place on record any documents substantiating her contentions that the police official did not record her statement well. Testimony of PW-1/Complainant Smt. Bithu Roy shows that she has deposed that blood was oozing from her mouth and one Sushila put a cloth in her mouth whereas these facts were nowhere mentioned in her complaint made to the police. Moreover, the complaint has disclosed she has file a civil suit against accused persons. In this circumstance, it becomes highly doubtful to rely upon the testimony of complainant.
12. Further, this is the allegation of the complaint that accused Dimpy snatched her mobile phone and thrashed it on the road. Perusal of records show that though such mobile was duly seized by the police, however, the same was not sent to FSL for any forensic examination to ascertain the nature and kind of damage or whether the damage to the mobile phone occurred consequent to the thrashing of it on the road.
13. Perusal of testimony of PW-3 SI Mangal Ram shows that IO has admitted that the alleged spot where the incident is stated to have occurred is a residential FIR No.87/2020 P.S. Vikas Puri State Vs. Amit Sharm & Ors. Page 12 of 15 area, however, IO did not join any public witness in the investigation. IO did not serve any notice to any public witness to become part of investigation. No efforts were made by the IO to join any neighbour in the investigation or record their statements. The court does not find the evidence of both the witnesses to be trustworthy, in the absence of evidence of independent witness, to convict the accused persons.
14. This Court is well conscious of the fact that the undue insistence on production of independent evidences shall not be given in each and every case but in the cases like one in hand, as a rule of caution, the corroboration of the testimony of the complainant and other interested witnesses shall be sought from some independent evidences. The version of the IO that no eye witnesses were found at the spot appears to be misplaced. These facts and circumstances clearly suggests that the version of PW-1 has not been supported by any independent evidences, thus it would be highly unsafe to act on the testimony of PW-1 to hold the accused persons liable for the alleged offences. The evidence given by PW-1 does not fall within the category of cogent and reliable evidence, due to which the story propounded against accused persons appears to be false and difficult to believe. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the accused persons have probablized their defense that they have been falsely implicated in the present case due to the enmity and grudges entertained by the complainant against them.
15. The observations were made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kaliram vs State of Himanchal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773 wherein it was held that accused is presumed to be innocent till charges against him are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
16. In another case titled as Mousam Singh Roy & ors. vs. State of West Benga (2003) 12 SCC 377, it was held that burden of proof in criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. It was further observed that FIR No.87/2020 P.S. Vikas Puri State Vs. Amit Sharm & Ors. Page 13 of 15 it is a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused.
17. Further, even if the court believes on the evidences of PW 1, then ingredients of Section 509 IPC are not satisfied. Section 509 IPC is reproduced as here as under :-
Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine.
18. Modesty of a women relates to her sex, reliance is placed upon the judgment titled as Raju Pandurang Mahalaya vs State of Maharashtra. A bare perusal of Secton 509 IPC shows that the words, sound or gestures should have been made with intention to insult the modesty of any woman. However, in the present case, the complaint has not disclosed any words in her deposition which can be said to have any ingredient of Section 509 IPC. Though, the complainant as disclosed words like "tu mujh par case karegi' but the deposition has come by way of leading questions by the Ld. APP for the State and even if the said words are taken together, they do not disclose any such ingredients so as to attract Sec- tion 509 IPC. Even if we believed the version of PW-1 to be proved, in the present case, the abusive words have been used by the accused pesons against the complainant on some quarrel happened on the road. The mere using of filthy words cannot be equated with insulting of modesty of a women. There is no evi-
FIR No.87/2020 P.S. Vikas Puri State Vs. Amit Sharm & Ors. Page 14 of 15dence on record which shows that the abusive language was issued with any sex- ual overtone.
19. This Court is well cognizant of the fact that the minor contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses which does not go to the root of the case deserves to be ignored but conversely, the material contradictions and omissions in the testimony of witnesses which goes to and attacks the very roots of the case cannot be ignored. It is also a settled canon of criminal jurisprudence that if two reasonably probable and evenly balanced views of the evidence are possible, one must necessarily concede to the existence of a reasonable doubt. The aforementioned lacunae in the story of the prosecution render the version of the prosecution doubtful, leading to an irresistible conclusion that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts has not been discharged by the prosecution. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring on record any cogent evidences in order to prove the commission and guilt of the accused persons for offences u/s 324/341/509/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubts, thus, entitling the accused persons to benefit of doubt and acquittal.
20. Thus, the prosecution has also failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubts that on the given date, time and place the accused persons have committed the aforesaid offences. Accordingly, accused Dimpy W/o Sh. Amit Sharma is acquitted of offences u/s 323/341/427/509/34 IPC and accused persons namely, Amit Sharma S/o Sh. Ashok Sharma and Satpal Sharma S /o Gurdass Sharma are acquitted of offences u/s 323/341/509/34 IPC.
Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2026.03.30 16:26:46 +0630 Pronounced in the open court (Vinod Kumar) on 30th day of March, 2026 JMFC-05 (South West), Dwarka, Delhi FIR No.87/2020 P.S. Vikas Puri State Vs. Amit Sharm & Ors. Page 15 of 15