Delhi District Court
State vs Aakash Sethi on 11 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. HIMANSHI TYAGI, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-03, TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
JUDGMENT
FIR No. 170/2008
Unique Case ID no. 300638/2016
Title State Vs. Akash Sethi
Name of Complainant Ct. Yogender Giri
Name of Accused Akash Sethi S/o Sh. Pawan
Sethi R/o H. No. B 236
Derawal Nagar, Dehi.
Date of institution of challan 25.03.2009
Date of arguments 26.07.2025
Date of pronouncement 11.09.2025
HIMANSHI
TYAGI Offence complained of U/s 323/279/186/353/332 IPC
Digitally signed
by HIMANSHI Offene charged with U/s 279/186/353/332 IPC
TYAGI
Date: 2025.09.11
17:49:13 +0530 Plea of the accused Not Guilty
Final order Acquitted
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE:-
01. The case of prosecution against the accused is that on 03.08.08 at about 11.15 PM near Amba Cinema, Ghanta Ghar near Beetle Shop, Delhi accused was driving his car bearing registra- tion No. DL-4CR-8273 in a rash and negligent manner and while driving so he hit the police barricades at Singh Sabha Road. It is State Vs. Akash Sethi Page no. 1/18 further alleged that when accused was stopped by the complainant Ct. Yogender Giri, patrolling officers Ct Hari Chand and Ct Chand Ram reached at the spot and they were taking the accused to the police station in Roop Nagar. It is alleged that while they were pro- ceeding towards the police station, they stopped at the red traffic light at Shakti Nagar Chowk, where accused got off from the car and started to run away. The police officers tried to stop him but the accused manhandled Ct Yoginder Giri and Ct Chand Ram, he voluntarily obstructed them, used criminal force upon them, tore uniform of Ct Chand Ram, caught hold of him from his neck and caused injuries to him. It is thus alleged by the prosecution that ac- cused voluntarily obstructed the public servants in the execution of their duty and caused injury to their person. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences u/s 279/323/186/353/332 IPC.
BRIEF OF COURT PROCEEDINGS:
HIMANSHI TYAGI
02. Pursuant to cognisance, accused was summoned in the Digitally signed by HIMANSHI case. In compliance of Sec. 207 Cr.PC chargesheet and other doc-TYAGI Date: 2025.09.11 17:49:22 +0530
uments were supplied to the accused. After hearing arguments, charge for offence punishable under section 279/186/353/332 IPC was framed against the accused on 09.12.2010 by the Ld Predeces- sor of the court, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
03. File was received on 03.07.2025 from the court of Ld JMFC-05, Central, THC, Delhi pursuant to transfer of PS Roop Nagar to the court of the undersigned, created vide order no 16/DHC/Gaz-IIB/G-7/VI.E2(a)2025 dated 30.05.2025 of the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi. The matter was then at the stage of State Vs. Akash Sethi Page no. 2/18 final arguments.
04. The prosecution had cited total 11 witnesses in the present matter. The brief of their testimonies is as as follows:
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION IN BRIEF:-
05. PW-1 is SI Surjeet Singh who deposed that on 04.08.08 at about 01.05 am he received rukka through Ct. Yogender Giri which was sent by SI Dinesh Prasad for getting the case registered. On the basis of rukka, he registered the case vide FIR No. 170/08 which is Ex. PWI/A (OSR), endorsement on original rukka which is Ex. PW1/B. He was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity.
HIMANSHI TYAGI 06. PW-2 is Ct. Yogender Giri who deposed that on 03.08.2008 at about 11.15 pm, when he was present in front of Digitally signed by HIMANSHI TYAGI Amba Cinema a car bearing registration no. DL-4CR-8273 came Date: 2025.09.11 17:49:27 +0530 in a rash and negligent manner and in front of gate of Amba Cinema, the car hit the barricades put on the road. In the meantime, the motorcycle patrolling staff ASI Harish Chand and Ct Chand Ram also reached there and the car driver was found under the influence of liquor. He deposed that they all alongwith the accused proceeded towards Shakti Nagar Chowk and when they reached near the chowk, the accused opened the door of the car and tried to run away. Ct Chand Ram asked the accused not to run away but he scuffled with Ct Chand Ram, they intervened in the matter and the accused pushed the motorcycle of police official and thrown it on the road and its right side glass was broken, the accused also torn State Vs. Akash Sethi Page no. 3/18 the uniform of Ct Chand Ram , caught hold him from his neck and also pushed Chand Ram on the road due to which he sustained injuries on his person. He deposed that SI DP Yadav with Ct Surender reached at the spot, they handed over the accused, SI D P Yadav got Ct Chand Ram and the accused medically examined, recorded his statement Ex. PW-2/A, prepared site plan, seized the car of the accused vide memo Ex. PW-2/B, seized the torn shirt of uniform of Ct Chand Ram after converting into cloth pullanda vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/C, arrested accused vide memo Ex, PW-2/D, conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW-2/E. He identified his signatures on the above documents, identified the accused and photographs of the car of the accused and the shirt of Ct. Chand Ram. Then he was duly cross-examined by the defence HIMANSHI TYAGI counsel.
Digitally signed by HIMANSHI TYAGI Date: 2025.09.11 17:49:32 +053007. PW-3 is ASI Surender who deposed that on 03.08.2008 he received DD NO 66B regarding quarrel at Shakti Nagar Chowk, he went along with IO to the spot and met Ct Chand Ram, ASI Harish Chander and Ct Yoginder. He also found accused at the spot. He further deposed that one Govt. motorcycle i.e. MM-17 was found lying on the road with its right side glass broken and that the said motorcycle was being driven by Cr. Chand Ram. He deposed that he took accused Aakash Sethi for medical examination at Hindu Rao Hospital, took rukka to PS for registration of FIR and handed the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO. He deposed about his role in the investigation and identified the accused as well as the case property before the court. He was also duly cross-examined by the defence counsel.
State Vs. Akash Sethi Page no. 4/18
08. PW-4 is Ct. Chand Ram who deposed that on 04.08.2008 he was on night patrolling duty alongwith ASI Hari Chand, on government motorcycle bearing No. DL-1SN-5577 (NM-17) and they were returning from Gurudwara Singh Sabha Road. He deposed that he reached at 11.30 PM near Amba Cinema at Gurudwara Singh Sabha Road, Delhi, there were barricades placed on the road and Ct. Yogender Giri and HC Surjeet were present there. One car bearing No. DL-4CR-8273 had hit the barricades and accused with last name as Sethi was under the influence of alcohol who was brought out of the car whom they tried to take to PS. He further deposed that he was on his motorcycle at that time, Ct. Yogender Giri and HC Surjeet were taking accused to PS in the car of accused, when they reached at red light of shakti nagar chowk as the signal was red, the car stopped, accused started HIMANSHI running away from the car, he alongwith ASI Hari Chand were TYAGI following that car, they tried to stop accused but accused struck Digitally signed by HIMANSHI TYAGI down their motorcycle by pushing it through leg blow, tore his Date: 2025.09.11 17:49:45 +0530 uniform from both shoulders and pockets, somebody had made 100 number call, police officials alongwith 2-3 PCR came at the spot and 2-3 relatives of accused had also came at the spot. Accused was taken to PS alongwith his wife.IO/SI D.P Yadav came from the PS recorded his statement, seized the car of accused and his my uniform. He identified the car, his uniform as well as the accused before the court. Ld. APP for State asked leading question regarding clarification of date on which he deposed that the date as 03.08.2008. Then he was duly cross-examined at length by the defence counsel.
09. PW-5 is Retd SI Hari Chand who deposed that on State Vs. Akash Sethi Page no. 5/18 03.08.2008 he was on patrolling duty with Ct. Chand Ram from 08.00 PM to 08.00 AM and reached near Amba Cinema at about 11.15 PM and met with Ct. Yogender alongwith accused who told him that accused hit his car with the barricades as he was under the influence of alcohol and misbehaved with him so they were taking accused to the PS and he asked him to accompany them. Thereafter, he and Ct. Chand Ram accompanied them on the government motorcycle. At the traffic signal of Shakti Nagar chowk, Ct. Yogender and Ct. Chand Ram stopped the respective vehicles due to traffic signal being red, accused opened the door of the car and tried to escape but Ct. Chand Ram asked him to sit in the car and thereafter accused started creating nuisance there. He deposed that accused tore the shirt of Ct. Chand Ram, he abusing HIMANSHI TYAGI them, pushed their motorcycle due to which the mirror of the Digitally signed by motorcycle also broke and the information of same was given to HIMANSHI TYAGI Date: 2025.09.11 17:49:37 +0530 the PS. From the PS, SI D.P. Yadav came to spot and started the investigation. Then he was duly cross-examined at length by the defence counsel.
10. PW-6 is Sh. Rajesh Kumar who produced the original record of MLC No. 597508 dated 04.08.2008 and identified the handwriting and signatures of the doctors concerned on MLC of accused which is Ex.PW6/A. Then he was duly cross-examined by the defence counsel.
11. PW-7 is S.I Dinesh Prashad who deposed that on 03.08.2008, he went to the spot after receiving DD no 66B, he met the police officials Ct Chand Ram, Ct Yoginder Giri and ASI Hari Chand. He deposed that he found a motorcycle at the spot, he State Vs. Akash Sethi Page no. 6/18 prepared rukka and handed it over to Ct Surender, he prepared site plan Ex.PW-7/A, he demanded documents of car from the accused but he did not give any document so he made a challan under Section 185/3/181 and 39/192 MV Act against the accused. He deposed about his further role in the investigation that he deposited case property was deposited in Maalkhana, took accused to police station, released him on furnishing of bail bonds, recorded statement of witnesses, he got conducted mechanical inspection of the car, obtained result of MLC of Ct. Chand Ram on which the injury was opined as simple, he obtained permission u/s 195 Cr.P.C for the prosecution of accused from competent authority which is Ex. PW-7/B and filed the charge-sheet before the court. Then he was duly cross-examined by the defence counsel.
HIMANSHI TYAGI 12. PW-8 is Retired ASI/Tech Devender Kumar who deposed Digitally signed by that on 06.08.2008, he at the request of SI D.P. Yadav, HIMANSHI TYAGI Date: 2025.09.11 mechanically inspected the vehicle i.e; Skoda car bearing no. DL 17:49:51 +0530 4CR 8273 in the PS Roop Nagar and that he submitted his detailed report Ex. PW-8/A. Then he was duly cross-examined by the defence counsel.
13. PW-8 is Director in Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways, (due to typographical error he is also mentioned as PW-8 ) who deposed that he prepared the sanctioned report u/s 195 Cr.P.C. Then he was duly cross-examined by the defence counsel.
14. Statement u/s. 313 Cr.PC of accused was recorded by the Ld. Predecessor wherein all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence was put to him to which he pleaded State Vs. Akash Sethi Page no. 7/18 innocence and that he have been falsely implicated in the present matter as he denied to give bribe to the police officers. He stated that the police officers were not in uniform, they entered his car and started driving it and they refused to show their ID cards to him. He opted not to lead DE.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
15. Ld. APP for state had argued that prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story, their testimony have remained unrebutted and that on a combined reading of testimony of prosecution witnesses, offence U/s 279/186/353/332 IPC IPC are proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and he HIMANSHI thus be convicted for the said offences. TYAGI Digitally signed by HIMANSHI TYAGI 16. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for accused argued that the Date: 2025.09.11 17:50:02 +0530 accused had been implicated falsely in the present case as he did not give bribe to the police officers and that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused. It was further argued that the prosecution witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and there are number of inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses which entitles the accused to be acquitted. He also argued that no test to determine the alcohol in the blood of the accused was done, that mechanical inspection report is insufficient to prove that the car of the accused hit the barricades and there is no evidence of rash and negligent driving. He further argued that the complaint u/s 195 CrPC had not been duly proved as the accompanying letter of the SHO concerned was State Vs. Akash Sethi Page no. 8/18 or filed or produced before the court. He prayed for acquittal of the accused.
DECISION ALONG WITH BRIEF REASONS:
17. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld Counsel for accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
18. It is the cardinal principle of criminal justice delivery sys-
tem that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused be- yond reasonable doubts. No matter how weak the defence of ac- cused is but the golden rule of the criminal jurisprudence is that the case of prosecution has to stand on its own legs.
19. The accused has been charged for the offences U/s Digitally 186/353/332/353 IPC. For the charge u/s 186 CrPC, the com-
signed by
HIMANSHI
HIMANSHI TYAGI
TYAGI Date:
2025.09.11
17:50:32
+0530
plaint u/s 195 CrPC needs to be proved.
20. The Ld counsel for the accused argued that the complaint u/s 195 CrPC filed on record is defective as there is no complaint or letter or other document of like nature of the SHO of PS Roop Nagar which formed the basis of the complaint u/s 195 CrPC made by the ACP concerned. He thus argued that accused cannot be con- victed for the offence u/s 186 IPC as the procedure u/s 195 CrPC was not followed properly.
21. At the outset itself, I deem it appropriate to reproduce the legal provisions involved in the case at hand. Section 186 IPC reads as under:
State Vs. Akash Sethi Page no. 9/18 "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".
22. At this stage, a reference to section 195 Cr.P.C is also essential. Section 195 Cr.P.C laid down that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable u/s. 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the IPC except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.
23. It is evident from the bare perusal of the above provision HIMANSHI TYAGI that law only demands a complaint to the court by the superior offi-
Digitally signed by cer to which the concerned police officer is subordinate. There is HIMANSHI TYAGI Date: 2025.09.11 17:50:44 +0530no legal and mandatory requirement to file the complaint/letter of the SHO also on record. Though the non filing of official commu- nication between the SHO and the ACP concerned regarding the complaint u/s 195 CrPC, may be a missing link in the case of the prosecution, it certainly does not make the complaint u/s 195 CrPC which is Ex PW7/B as defective or the prosecution of the accused for the offence u/s 186 IPC as void ab intio.
24. In the present case, prosecution has produced and examined the ACP concerned Sh. Mandeep Singh Randhawa as PW8 to prove the complaint u/s. 195 Cr.P.C. The complaint u/s.
State Vs. Akash Sethi Page no. 10/18 195 Cr.P.C. itself is Ex. PW7/B. Perusal of Ex.PW7/B clearly shows that the said complaint was made to the court and infact the subject of Ex. PW7/B reads permission U/S 195 Cr.P.C. Even in its last paragraph , it is mentioned that permission under section 195 Cr.P.C. is granted to take the cognizance of the case by the court. The alleged permission under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is infact complaint u/s. 195 Cr.P.C. as envisaged by the said legal provision. Thus Ex. PW7/B falls within four corners of a complaint as postulated by under section 195 Cr.P.C and is a valid complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. in the eyes of law.
25. Regarding the offence u/s 279 IPC, the IPC provides as follows:
HIMANSHI TYAGI "Rash driving or riding on a public way.--Digitally signed by HIMANSHI TYAGI
Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any Date: 2025.09.11 17:50:53 +0530 public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both".
26. Section 332 IPC reads as under:
"Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty--Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such State Vs. Akash Sethi Page no. 11/18 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".
27. Section 353 IPC read as under :
"Assault or criminal force to deter public HIMANSHI TYAGI servant from discharge of his duty--Digitally signed by HIMANSHI TYAGI
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to Date: 2025.09.11 17:51:12 +0530 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 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 two years, or with fine or with both".
28. The story as put forward by the prosecution shows that the eye witnesses of the incident are Ct Chand Ram, Ct Harichand and State Vs. Akash Sethi Page no. 12/18 Ct Yoginder Giri. There is no public witness of the incident. The testimony of the these three witnesses is thus required to be appre- ciated minutely to see as to whether the case of the prosecution stands proved or not. By virtue of testimony of these witnesses only, basic facts of the present case would also get unfolded for its verification and corroboration.
29. As revealed from the testimonies of the above-mentioned three witnesses, allegedly the incident can be described broadly as follows -the accused hit the police barricades with his car while driving his Skoda car in rash and negligent manner. The police of- ficer posted then at the said barricades was Ct Yoginder Giri, ex- amined as PW2, and he asked the accused to come to police sta- tion. He found accused to be under the influence of alcohol. Soon HIMANSHI TYAGI Ct Harichand and Ct Chand Ram reached there as they were on Digitally signed by HIMANSHI TYAGI patrolling duty. They intervened in the matter and since accused Date: 2025.09.11 17:51:20 +0530 Akash was found to be drunk, so they were taking him to the police station. However accused ran from the car when the vehicles stopped at the red light and hit the motorcycle on which Ct Hari chand and Ct Chand Ram were travelling and caused hurt to Ct Chand Ram. The said motorcycle also fell and its right side mirror got broken. The careful scrutiny and juxtaposition of the testi- monies of PW2 Ct Yoginder Giri, PW4 Ct Chand Ram and PW5 SI Hari Chand reveals certain inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution which raises doubts on the material aspects of the case of the prosecution.
30. PW4 Ct Chand Ram is the one and only injured herein. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused tore his uniform and State Vs. Akash Sethi Page no. 13/18 caused him simple hurt by pushing his motorcycle. Therefore his testimony holds a significant value for the decision of the case. About the action of accused which caused injuries to him, PW4 de- posed that the accused pushed his bike by leg blow, he fell and that accused also tore his uniform. PW2 Yoginder Giri deposed that Ct Chand Ram was pushed onto the road by the accused. However, PW4 Ct Chand Ram himself did not depose anything about it. The careful perusal of his testimony clearly shows that PW4 has not de- posed about any direct of accused on his person. It seems highly unlikely that the main witness and the victim would not remember the act of him being pushed by the accused but the eye witness PW2 remembers that injured was pushed by accused.
31. Further, PW4 Ct Chand Ram deposed that one person HC Surjeet was also present at the spot alongwith Ct Yoginder Giri. However, PW2 Yoginder Giri has not deposed about the presence HIMANSHI of any person of such name. Infact during cross examination on TYAGI this aspect, PW2 specifically denied the presence of HC Surjeet.
Digitally signed by HIMANSHI TYAGIDate: 2025.09.11 Also, neither the IO nor the police witness Hari Chand deposed 17:51:27 +0530 anything about the presence of HC Surjeet. No justifiable explana- tion thus came before the court as to why PW4 would name a per- son who was not present at the spot or as to why other police wit- nesses, except PW5, would not depose about presence of HC Sur- jeet at the spot. This discrepancy certainly adds to the doubts about the veracity of the prosecution case.
32. PW 4 Ct Chand Ram also deposed that somebody had called the police helpline Number 100 and police officials along- with 2-3 PCR vans reached at the spot. There is no mention of State Vs. Akash Sethi Page no. 14/18 reaching of PCR vans at the spot in testimony of any other wit- nesses. Infact, there is nothing about the PCR caller on record. It seems that either the IO has not done any investigation regarding the PCR caller or the PW4 has not given the true versions of the facts. In either case, the prosecution case becomes further doubt- ful.
33. PW4 also deposed that 2-3 relatives of the accused came at the spot. Again, this fact does not find mention in testimony of any other prosecution witness. Thus, only one conclusion can be drawn in this case that the testimony of main witness is marred with inconsistencies which casts a huge shadow of doubt upon the HIMANSHI entire case of the prosecution.
TYAGI Digitally signed by HIMANSHI TYAGI
34. Coming to the other witness of the prosecution, PW 9 Hari Date: 2025.09.11 17:51:34 +0530 Chand. He deposed that Ct Yoginder Giri told him that accused had hit the barricades and has misbehaved with him and that he re- quested their assistance to take the accused to the police station. On the contrary, PW 4 Ct Chand Ram, who was accompanying Ct Hari Chand at that time, deposed all together on different lines. PW4 deposed that they reached near police barricades and then ac- cused came and hit the barricades and misbehaved. Meaning thereby that the act of hitting the barricades by the accused hap- pened in the presence of Ct Chand Ram, Ct Yoginder Giri and Ct Hari Chand This gives two versions- one given by PW4 Ct Chand Ram- where Ct Chand Ram and Ct Harichand reached at the spot and then saw accused hitting the barricades and misbehaving. Second-given by PW9 Ct Hari Chand- that when he and Ct Chand Ram reached at the spot, Ct Yoginder Giri informed them that ac-
State Vs. Akash Sethi Page no. 15/18 cused had hit the barricades and misbehaved. Since PW4 Ct Chand Ram and PW9 Ct Harichand reached at the spot at same time on same vehicle, there is no justifiable reason for the variance and contradiction in their testimonies. The only conclusion that can be drawn in this scenario is that the prosecution case is doubt- ful.
35. Further, the government motorcycle allegedly pushed and whose mirror was broken by the accused was not produced before the court. Even the photographs of the said vehicle were not pro- duced before the court. PW 2 deposed that the photograph of the said vehicle were taken. However, no justifiable explanation was forthcoming from the prosecution for the non production of the photographs, if they were so taken. No other witness deposed about the photographs of the motorcycle. Thus, it is quite evident HIMANSHI TYAGI that on this aspect also, there is inconsistency and contradiction be-
Digitally signed by tween the statements of the prosecution witnesses. HIMANSHI TYAGI Date: 2025.09.11 17:51:39 +053036. There are certain other lacunae in the case of the prosecu- tion. For instance, no breath analyser or blood test of accused to determine the presence of alcohol was got conducted by the IO. In- fact accused was got medically examined and as per MLC Ex PW 4/B , the concerned doctor has mentioned in the MLC that smell of alcohol is present, still no test was done to confirm the presence of alcohol. As per Section 185 of Motor Vehicle Act, a person is con- sidered intoxicated only if he is tested and found to have more than 30 mg/100 ml of alcohol in his blood. In the present case, no test was done to determine the blood alcohol concentration or to show that it exceeded the stipulated limit. Mere presence of 'smell of al-
State Vs. Akash Sethi Page no. 16/18 cohol' would not be enough to fasten the liability of rash and negli- gent driving upon the accused. Reliance is placed upon the judge- ment of the Hon'ble High Court in Smt Shiny Boby Raj vs Tata AIG GEN INS CO LTD. Neutral citation: 2024/DHC/9482 wherein it was ruled as follows:
"17:To conclude, merely because there was smell of alcohol in the breath of the Driver, it cannot be held that the driver was intoxicated or was negligent in driving of the vehicle and in causing the accident."
37. There is no evidence even otherwise to show that accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. As already HIMANSHI discussed in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment, the testi- TYAGI mony of the prosecution witnesses is doubtful. The testimonies of Digitally signed by HIMANSHI TYAGI the police witnesses cannot be relied to prove that accused was Date: 2025.09.11 17:51:43 +0530 driving his car in rash and negligent manner or he was so driving it under state of intoxication. There were no other public witness to the case. There is no reliable testimony to shows that accused had hit the barricades at the spot due to his rash and negligent driving. I find myself in agreement with the contention of the defence coun- sel that the opinion of the mechanical expert about presence of yellow colour scratch mark on the vehicle of the accused, in his re- port Ex PW8/A, is insufficient to prove that the car of the accused actually hit the barricades due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. Thus, the offence u/s 279 IPC has not proved beyond rea- sonable doubts.
State Vs. Akash Sethi Page no. 17/18
38. To recapitulate the above discussion, the allegations against the accused has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. The constitutional presumption of innocence guaranteed to every individual is of primary importance, and the conviction of the accused must rest not on the weakness of the defence he/she put up but on the strength of the evidence for the prosecution. In the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt of the crime in question, the entire case of the prosecution crumbles down. The prosecution has completely failed to bring home the charge under section 186/279/332/353 IPC against the accused. Accordingly, accused Akash Sethi S/o Pawan Sethi is acquitted in the present case on the basis of benefit of doubt.
39. Ordered accordingly.
The Judgment contains 18 pages and each page has been signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signed by HIMANSHI TYAGI HIMANSHI Date: TYAGI 2025.09.11 17:51:50
Pronounced in open Court on 11.09.2025. +0530 (Himanshi Tyagi) Metropolitan Magistrate-03 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi State Vs. Akash Sethi Page no. 18/18