Delhi District Court
State vs Jabir@Raja on 16 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. KUMAR RAJAT,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-07, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
CNR No. DLSH01-001779-2025
SC No. 111/2025
FIR No. 388/2024
PS Nand Nagri
U/s: 307/506/34 IPC
State
Vs.
Javed @ Jabir @ Raja,
S/o Sh. Mohd. Rahis,
R/o H. No. 120, Gali No. 3,
Sunder Nagri, Delhi
....... Accused
Date of Institution of case 02.04.2025
Date of case reserved for Judgment 14.03.2026
Judgment Pronounced on 16.03.2026
Decision Accused Javed @ Jabir
@ Raja acquitted for the
offence u/s 307/506/34
IPC
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. As per the case of prosecution, complainant Mohd. Faizan alleged that on 29.05.2024 at about 07:30 pm, when he State Vs Javed @ Jabir @Raja FIR No. 388/2024 PS Nand Nagri Page 1 of 20 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2026.03.16 16:48:23 +0530 was standing outside his shop at 179, H-Block, Sundar Nagri, Delhi and his one year old son was in his lap, three persons Javed and CCLs 'P' and 'R' came there, who were known to him. Accused Javed and CCL 'R' were having suaa (pointed object used to break ice-slabs) in their hands with which they caused injury to complainant and CCL 'P' was having belt in his hand and they had eaten biryani a day before without paying the price and some altercation had taken place with them and they were angry that complainant demanded money for biryani and they told him that they would kill him. When he shouted to save himself, his cousin Tajeem came there and accused persons fled the spot.
2. On the basis of said complaint, an FIR No. 388/2024 dt. 30.05.2024 was registered in PS Nand Nagri u/s 307/34 IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused Javed @ Jabir @ Raja u/s 307/506/34 IPC and after filing of charge sheet, cognizance of offences was taken against accused Javed @ Jabir @ Raja.
CHARGE
3. Charge for the offences punishable u/s 307/506/34 IPC was framed against accused Javed @ Jabir @ Raja by the Ld. Predecessor on 06.05.2025. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
ADMISSION / DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
4. Admission/denial of documents u/s 330 BNSS (u/s 294 Cr.P.C.) was conducted on 07.01.2026 and 14.03.2026 and accused had not disputed the following documents:
State Vs Javed @ Jabir @Raja FIR No. 388/2024 PS Nand Nagri Page 2 of 20 Digitally signedKUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.03.16 16:48:28 +0530
(i) FIR No. 388/2024 dt. 30.05.2024, PS Nand Nagri (without admitting its contents), Ex.PA1.
(ii) Certificate u/s 65B IEA regarding the FIR, Ex.PA2.
(iii) DD No. 134A dt. 29.05.2024, Ex.PA3.
(iv) MLC of injured Mohd. Faizan, GTB Hospital dt. 29.05.2024 prepared by Dr. Vishal Sharma along with final opinion regarding nature of injuries given by Dr. Tanuj Khanna and Dr. Amit Bagra, Ex.PA4.
(v) PCR Form dt. 29.05.2024 with event ID No. 9196424, Ex.PA5.
(vi) Age certificate of accused Jabir issued from school at Delhi dt. 06.06.2024, Ex.PA6.
(vii) FSL Report dt. 09.10.2024, Ex.PA7.
(viii) RC No. 152/21/24 dt. 23.07.2024, Ex.PW3/I.
(ix) Acknowledgment FSL dt. 23.07.2024, Ex.PW3/J. In view of above-said admission, the requirement of evidence of following witnesses was dispensed with:
(a) HC Sanuj (at Sl. No. 4 in the LoW).
(b) ASI Harbir Singh (at Sl. No. 5 in the LoW).
(c) Dr. Vishal Sharma (at Sl. No. 7 in the LoW).
(d) Dr. Amit Bagra (at Sl. No. 8 in the LoW).
(e) Dr. Tanuj Khanna (at Sl. No. 9 in the LoW).
(f) HC Prahlad (at Sl. No. 6 in the LoW).
(g) Ct. Nishu Kumar (at Sl. No. 10 in the LoW).
(h) Principal NPV School, Shahdara, Delhi (at Sl. No. 12 in the LoW)
(i) Ct. Amit (at Sl. No. 3 in the LoW)
(j) MHC(M)/CP (at Sl. No. 1 in the Supplementary LoW)
(k) Ms. Manisha Upadhaya (at Sl. No. 2 in the supplementary LoW).State Vs Javed @ Jabir @Raja FIR No. 388/2024 PS Nand Nagri Page 3 of 20
Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2026.03.16 16:48:32 +0530 PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. Prosecution examined three witnesses (3) in its favour to prove the case.
6. PW1 Faizan deposed that he was working in Zomato and in the year 2024, he along with his father was running a biryani shop at 179, Gali No. 3, Sunder Nagri, Delhi. On 29.05.2024, at about 07:30 pm, he was present outside his above said shop and his cousin Tajim was inside the above said shop.
Some persons came to PW1 and started beating him with some pointed object. He was unable to see their faces as it was dark at that time and everything happened within few seconds. PW1 was taken to the GTB Hospital by the police official where his signature were taken on some blank papers. PW1 had admitted the cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP that on 11.06.2024, his blood samples were taken at GTB Hospital by the doctor at the instance of IO/ASI Narender Kumar. PW1 could not identify suaa, Ex.P1 and belt, Ex.P2 and accused.
7. PW2 Mohd. Tajeem deposed that Faizan is his cousin. On 29.05.2024, he was studying in class 12th and at about 06:00- 06:30 pm, when PW2 returned from his tuition, PW2 went to the shop of Faizan to meet him at H Block, Sunder Nagri, Delhi and at that time, Faizan was playing with his infant son. PW2 went inside the shop and started eating biryani and he heard the shouts of Faizan. When PW2 came outside the shop, his nephew was crying while sitting beside Faizan, who was lying and bleeding. PW2 got frightened and called the police at 112 number. PW2 could not see the person, who caused injuries to Faizan. Then, State Vs Javed @ Jabir @Raja FIR No. 388/2024 PS Nand Nagri Page 4 of 20 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.03.16 16:48:37 +0530 police reached at the spot.
8. PW3 ASI Narender Kumar deposed that on 29.05.2024, he was working as ASI at PS Nand Nagri and on that day, on receiving DD No. 134A, he along with Ct. Amit reached at the spot i.e. in front of H. No. 179, H Block, Sunder Nagri, Delhi where they came to know that injured had already been taken to GTB Hospital. They went to GTB Hospital and collected the MLC of injured Faizan and requested him to give his statement, but he replied that he was having pain and he would give his statement later on. The above said DD entry was kept pending.
9. PW3 further deposed that on 30.05.2024, in the afternoon, above said injured came at the PS and gave his statement/complaint, Ex.PW1/A. PW3 prepared the rukka, Ex.PW3/A and got registered the FIR. Thereafter, he along with complainant Faizan went to the spot and prepared the site plan, Ex.PW1/B. PW3 recorded the supplementary statement of complainant Faizan u/s 161 Cr.PC. After sometime, PW3 received an information from complainant Faizan regarding the presence of accused and CCLs at Pili Mitti Park, Sunder Nagri, Delhi. Thereafter, PW3 along with HC Raj Kumar went to above said park where complainant Faizan met them and he pointed out towards three persons sitting there and disclosed that those persons had caused injuries to him.
10. PW3 further deposed that those three persons were apprehended by PW3 and during interrogation, their names were came to be known as accused Javed @ Jabir @ Raja and CCLs State Vs Javed @ Jabir @Raja FIR No. 388/2024 PS Nand Nagri Page 5 of 20 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.03.16 16:48:41 +0530 'R' and 'P'. Separate proceedings were done regarding the CCL 'R' and 'P' by JWO, SI Ravi Dhaka. Accused Javed @ Jabir @ Raja was arrested vide arrest memo, Ex.PW1/D bearing his signature at point B and signature of HC Raj Kumar at point C, his personal search was conducted vide memo, Ex.PW1/E bearing his signature at point B and signature of HC Raj Kumar at point C and his disclosure statement was recorded vide statement, Ex.PW3/B bearing his signature at point A and signature of HC Raj Kumar at point B.
11. PW3 further deposed that thereafter, accused Javed @ Jabir @ Raja took them to bushes inside the above said park and got recovered the weapon i.e. sua used by accused Javed @ Jabir @ Raja for causing injuries to injured. PW3 seized the same vide seizure memo, Ex.PW3/C bearing his signature at point A and signature of HC Raj Kumar at point B after sealing the same with the seal of NK.
12. PW3 further deposed that he also prepared the sketch of above said sua vide sketch memo, Ex.PW3/D bearing his signature at point A and signature of HC Raj Kumar at point B prior to its seizure. PW3 also prepared the site plan of place of recovery, Ex.PW3/E bearing his signature at point A and signature of HC Raj Kumar at point B. CCL 'P' also got recovered the belt used by him for causing injuries to injured Faizan, which was seized vide seizure memo, Ex.PW3/F. PW3 also filled the age memo of accused Javed @ Jabir @ Raja, Ex.PW3/G. Thereafter, accused Javed @ Jabir @ Raja was taken to PS Nand Nagri and PW3 deposited the above said case State Vs Javed @ Jabir @Raja FIR No. 388/2024 PS Nand Nagri Page 6 of 20 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2026.03.16 16:48:48 +0530 property in malkhana.
13. PW3 further deposed that on 11.06.2024, the blood samples of injured Faizan were taken by the doctor at GTB Hospital and PW3 seized the same vide seizure memo, Ex.PW3/H and deposited the same in the malkhana. Section 506 IPC was added in the present case. PW3 collected the PCR Form, Ex.PA5.
14. On 13.07.2024, he collected the final opinion qua nature of injury from the GTB Hospital on the MLC of injured, which was simple in nature. On 23.07.2024, PW3 got deposited the case property i.e. above said sua and blood sample of injured at FSL Rohini vide RC No. 152/21/24, Ex.PW3/I through HC Vinod and also collected the receipt of FSL No. 1803 dt. 23.07.2024, Ex.PW3/J. PW3 had correctly identified one sua (on the handle of which words Kohinoor Trade Mark are written), Ex.P1, which was got recovered by accused Javed @ Jabir @ Raja and also correctly identified one black colour belt, Ex.P2, which was got recovered from CCL 'P'. After completion of investigation, PW3 prepared the charge-sheet and submitted it in the Court. As per FSL report, DNA profile could not be generated due to degradation/ inhibition of blood sample. PW3 had correctly identified accused Javed @ Jabir @ Raja in the Court.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS u/s 313 Cr.P.C./351 BNSS
15. Statement of the accused Javed @ Jabir @ Raja was recorded u/s 351 BNSS (u/s 313 Cr.PC) on 14.03.2026 and he denied the incriminating evidence put to him and stated that State Vs Javed @ Jabir @Raja FIR No. 388/2024 PS Nand Nagri Page 7 of 20 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.03.16 16:48:56 +0530 public witnesses have not deposed against him and only IO, who is interested witness had deposed falsely.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE, ANALYSIS OF WITNESSES AND FINDING Arguments of Ld. Counsel for accused
16. Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police and public witnesses i.e. victim and eye-witness Tajeem have not supported the prosecution case and could not identify the accused in the Court or the weapon i.e. suaa and belt. He is innocent person and no suaa and belt were recovered from his possession and it was planted upon him by police as he never used the same and he never present at the spot and there is no CCTV footage/video or CDR to connect the accused with the crime. He did not cause any injury to the victim or any other person and it is a simple injury shown, which could be old injury or caused by someone else. Even after cross-examination by Ld. Addl PP, the said public witnesses failed to identify accused. There is no matching of DNA as the sample was degraded. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and he be acquitted.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. ADDL. PP FOR THE STATE
17. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that accused along with CCLs had inflicted injuries on the complainant Faizan with suaa and belt and these were correctly identified by PW3/IO, who has also correctly identified the accused and PW1 has correctly stated the date, time and manner of offence, which is corroborated by PW2. PW3/IO has supported the case of State Vs Javed @ Jabir @Raja FIR No. 388/2024 PS Nand Nagri Page 8 of 20 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.03.16 16:49:03 +0530 prosecution and proved the fact that accused had caused injury to victim by said weapon in furtherance of their common intention with CCLs and he was threatened by them. IO proved the complaint of PW1 and also proved the site plan at the instance of complainant. Thus, prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
18. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the records.
19. The charge against the accused is u/s 307/506/34 IPC Section 307 IPC Attempt to murder.- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to [imprisonment for life] or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Section 503 IPC Criminal intimidation:
Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threats, commits criminal intimidation.
Section 34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.-
"When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."State Vs Javed @ Jabir @Raja FIR No. 388/2024 PS Nand Nagri Page 9 of 20
Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.03.16 16:49:08 +0530
20. The prosecution has examined 3 witnesses to prove its case and out of them, the star witnesses were injured PW1/Faizan and PW2 Tajeem.
PUBLIC WITNESSES/INJURED
21. The present case was registered on the statement of complainant Mohd. Faizan, who alleged that on 29.05.2024 at about 07:30 pm, when he was standing outside his shop at 179, H Block, Sunder Nagri, Delhi, accused Javed along with CCLs 'P' and 'R' came there. Accused Javed and CCL 'R' were having suaa (pointed object used to break ice-slabs) in their hands with which they caused injury to complainant and CCL 'P' was having belt in his hand.
22. PW1 deposed and stated correct date and time of the incident i.e. 29.05.2024, at about 07:30 pm when he was present outside his house and his cousin Tajim was inside the said shop, some persons came to him and started beating him with some pointed object. PW1 further deposed that he was unable to see their faces as it was dark at that time and everything happened within few seconds. He could not identify accused in the Court despite mentioned in complaint that accused Javed was known to him.
23. PW1 had also not identified suaa (on the handle of which words Kohinoor Trade Mark written) used in the crime, Ex.P1 and black colour belt, Ex.P2. It creates serious doubts on identity of accused as an assailant.
24. PW1 was declared hostile and he had admitted in his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP that on 11.06.2024, his blood State Vs Javed @ Jabir @Raja FIR No. 388/2024 PS Nand Nagri Page 10 of 20 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2026.03.16 16:49:13 +0530 sample was taken at GTB Hospital by the doctor at the instance of IO/ASI Narender Kumar.
25. PW1 denied that accused Javed @ Jabir @ Raja along with CCLs 'R' and 'P' already known to him, came at his shop and accused Javed and CCL 'R' were carrying suaa and CCL 'P' was carrying belt in their hands or that accused Javed along with CCLs 'R' and 'P' started beating him and they stabbed him many times with their suaa. PW1 also denied that he had stated to the IO in his statement/complaint, Ex.PW1/A that accused Javed and above said CCLs visited his shop one day prior to the incident, but went away without giving money for the biryani and due to which PW1 had heated arguments with them and they further threatened him to kill. PW1 denied that when accused Javed along with CCLs was beating him, he stated PW1 that "kal tune humse biryani ke paise mange the, tu hume janta nahi hai, aaj tere saare paise de dete hai, aur tera kaam tamam kar denge". PW1 denied that on hearing his noise, his cousin Tejim came out of the shop and accused Javed along with CCLs fled away or that his cousin called at 112 number.
26. PW1 denied the contents of his complaint, Ex.PW1/A even after he was confronted with the same and on the basis of same, the FIR, Ex.PA1 was registered and thus, the prosecution could not prove the contents of FIR also.
27. PW1 denied that after registration of FIR, he along with IO/ASI Narender went to above said spot and IO prepared the site plan, Ex.PW1/B at his instance. He stated that police had obtained his signature on some blank papers.
State Vs Javed @ Jabir @Raja FIR No. 388/2024 PS Nand Nagri Page 11 of 20
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.03.16
16:49:17
+0530
28. PW1 also denied that on 30.05.2024, in the afternoon, he went to pilli mitti park, Sunder Nagri, Delhi in search of accused persons, where he saw accused Javed @ Jabir @ Raja along with CCLs or that he gave this information to the IO/ASI Narender Kumar, who reached there and accused Javed along with above said two CCLs were apprehended from the above said park on the basis of his identification. PW1 also denied that accused Jabir @ Raja @ Javed was arrested and personally searched on his identification vide arrest memo and personal search memo, Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E. PW1 volunteered replied that police official had taken his signature on some blank papers.
29. PW1 denied that he had stated to the IO in his statement dt. 30.05.2024 that accused Javed was the person, who along with CCLs 'R' and 'P' had caused injuries to him with sua and belt. PW1 denied these facts even after he was confronted with the contents of his statement, Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/F dt. 30.05.2024.
30. PW1 denied that he deposed falsely that he was not able to see the faces of the assailants due to dark or that accused Javed along with above said CCLs had caused injuries to him or that he deposed falsely as he was won over by the accused. PW1 has not made any allegations of criminal intimidation against the accused in his testimony.
31. Thus, PW1 has not supported the case of prosecution at all as he neither identified the accused nor the weapon used to inflict injury to him and nothing has come in his cross by Ld. State Vs Javed @ Jabir @Raja FIR No. 388/2024 PS Nand Nagri Page 12 of 20 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.03.16 16:49:22 +0530 Addl. PP.
32. PW2 Mohd. Tajeem in his deposition stated the correct date of incident i.e. 29.05.2024 and that at about 06:00- 06:30 pm, when he returned from his tuition, he went to the shop of Faizan to meet him at H Block, Sunder Nagri, Delhi and went inside the shop and started eating biryani and he heard the shouts of Faizan. When PW2 came outside the shop, his nephew was crying while sitting beside Faizan, who was lying and bleeding. PW2 could not see the person, who caused injuries to Faizan.
33. PW2 was hostile and he was further questioned by ld. Addl. PP and he stated that he had not stated to police that he had seen his neighbours namely Javed @ Jabir @ Raja, Rehman and Parvesh beating his cousin Faizan with ice picker and belt.
34. PW2 also denied that when he came out from shop of Faizan in order to save Faizan, all three assailants fled away from the spot with ice picker and belt. PW2 denied the above facts even after he was confronted with his previous statement u/s 161 Cr.PC, Ex.PW2/X.
35. PW2 had not identified accused Javed @ Jabir @ Raja and stated that he had not seen the accused while assaulting and inflicting injuries to Faizan on 29.05.2024. PW2 denied that he had not intentionally identified the accused as he was won over by him. PW2 has not made any allegations of criminal intimidation against the accused in his testimony.
Thus, even PW2 has not identified the accused or any case property and nothing has come in his cross by Ld. Addl. PP against the accused.
State Vs Javed @ Jabir @Raja FIR No. 388/2024 PS Nand Nagri Page 13 of 20Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.03.16 16:49:30 +0530 MEDICAL /FORENSIC WITNESSES
36. The accused had admitted the MLC of Faizan dt. 27.05.2024 of GTB Hospital, Ex.PA4 in which nature of injury is opined to be simple in nature, but since identity of accused as assailant has not been established, the opinion on MLC is consequential.
37. As per the FSL report, Ex.PA7, the DNA profile could not be generated due to degradation/inhibition of blood sample, thus FSL report also does not find any evidence against the accused.
POLICE WITNESSES
38. PW3 ASI Narender Kumar proved the rukka, Ex.PW3/A and the making the site plan, Ex.PW1/B, but the complainant/PW1 had denied the contents of his complaint and PW1 had denied that site plan was prepared at his instance and his signature were obtained on blank papers.
39. PW3 proved the arrest of accused Javed @ Jabir @ Raja vide arrest memo, Ex.PW1/D at the instance of PW Faizan, but he denied the same. PW3 proved the personal search of accsued, Ex.PW1/E, but nothing was found in his personal search. PW3 proved the recording of disclosure of accused, Ex.PW3/B and that he got recovered the suaa used in the crime from bushes of park.
40. The said recovery is not proved as per law as there is independent public witness to the recovery and it was recovered from an open place accessible to all.
State Vs Javed @ Jabir @Raja FIR No. 388/2024 PS Nand Nagri Page 14 of 20Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.03.16 16:49:38 +0530
41. In Mohd. Inayatullah V. State of Maharashtra (1976) 1 SCC 828, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered "the offence of theft and that the accused had made a statement of the place where the stolen drums were kept by him. Finding the admissible portion of the statement to be only the location of three drums, it was held that the information taken in conjunction with the facts discovered, was insufficient to draw the presumption that the accused was the thief or the receiver of the stolen property, with the knowledge that the it was stolen. The drums in question were found in the compound or yard of a musafirkhana (rest place for travellers) and it was neither lying concealed nor was the compound under the lock and key of the accused."
Similarly, the said fact was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagamma @ Nagarathna & Ors. Vs. the State of Karnataka, 2025 INSC 1135 dt. 22.09.2025.
42. In Radhey Shyam & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan Criminal Appeal No. 2203/2010 decided on 12.04.2023, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
7. Thus, PW4, who claims to be an eye witness, could not identify a single accused by name in the Court though she claimed that she was in a position to identify the accused by their names as well as their respective father's name.
9. We are therefore, of the considered opinion that the identity of the named accused as assailants of the deceased has not been established in the Court beyond a reasonable doubt. Then what remains is the evidence of the alleged recovery of the weapons of assault at the instance of the accused. The conviction cannot be sustained only on the basis of the alleged recovery.State Vs Javed @ Jabir @Raja FIR No. 388/2024 PS Nand Nagri Page 15 of 20
Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2026.03.16 16:49:45 +0530
43. PW3 proved the seizure of blood sample of accused vide memo, Ex.PW3/H, but the DNA profile could not be generated due to degradation/inhibition of blood sample and thus, the DNA report is also not against the accused. The evidence of IO is in the nature of hearsay evidence as he was told about the incident by the victim and another public witness (PW2), but they both turned hostile and did not identify the accused in court and disowned their previous statements even after being confronted with them.
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
44. Accused Javed @ Jabir @ Raja denied the incriminating evidence put to him in his statement u/s 351 BNSS on 14.03.2026 and stated that public witnesses have not supported and did not identify him and he was falsely implicated by the police officials in the present case without any fault on his part and he is innocent and no belt or suaa was recovered from his possession and it was planted upon him by police.
45. The prosecution case is weak after the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 and foundational facts have not been laid, so the defence of the accused is not material particularly when none of the public witnesses has identified accused during their testimony as the person involved in the crime. Even the admitted documents do not prove the offence against the accused. Prosecution failed to prove that accused Javed @ Jabir @ Raja had inflicted injury to the complainant with intention to kill or threatened him as no such allegations were made by injured/complainant or the other eye-witness.
State Vs Javed @ Jabir @Raja FIR No. 388/2024 PS Nand Nagri Page 16 of 20 Digitally signed by KUMARKUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.03.16 16:49:51 +0530
46. In Kailash Gour and Ors. Vs. State of Assam reported in MANU/SC/1505/2011, (2012) 2 SCC 34, Apex Court has observed that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is a principle that cannot be sacrificed on the altar or inefficiency, inadequacy or inept handling of the investigation by the police. The benefit arising from any such faulty investigation ought to go to the accused and not to the prosecution.
47. In Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka, dt. 13.10.2022, in Crl. Appeal No. 242/2022, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that it is settled principle of law that when two views are possible from the prosecution evidence, the one which is favourable to the accused shall have to be taken and the benefit of doubt shall have to be given to the accused.
48. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon the prosecution and prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the accused, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Reference may be made to the Judgments titled as 'Nallapati Sivaiah Vs. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur', reported as VIII (2007) SLT 454 (SC) in this respect. Reference may also be made to the Judgment titled as 'Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya Vs. State of Rajasthan', reported as (2013) 5 SCC 722, wherein it was held that 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 State Vs Javed @ Jabir @Raja FIR No. 388/2024 PS Nand Nagri Page 17 of 20 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.03.16 16:49:56 +0530 the basic and golden rule must be applied and 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.
CONCLUSION
49. In the totality of the circumstances brought on record by way of evidence, it is observed that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Javed @ Jabir @ Raja qua offence punishable u/s 307/506/34 IPC.
50. Consequently, the accused Javed @ Jabir @ Raja is acquitted of the offences u/s 307/506/34 IPC.
51. Surety stands discharged. Accused Javed @ Jabir @ Raja (in JC in another case) has furnished personal bond u/s 481 BNSS in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and accepted on 16.03.2026, shall remain in force for a period of six months.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 16th MARCH, 2026 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2026.03.16 16:50:02 +0530 (KUMAR RAJAT) ASJ-07, Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi/16.03.2026 State Vs Javed @ Jabir @Raja FIR No. 388/2024 PS Nand Nagri Page 18 of 20 Chart for Witnesses Examined Prosecution Name of Witness Description Witnesses No.
1. PW1 Faizan Eye-witnesses PW2 Mohd. Tajeem
2. NA Witness of last seen circumstances
3. NA Medical Jurist
4. ASI Narender Kumar Investigating Officer
5. PW1 Faizan Complainant/First Informant Chart for Exhibited Documents.
Exhibit Description of the Proved by/Attested by No. Exhibit
1. Inquest NA Panchnama/Memo
2. Recovery of sua, Ex.P1 PW1 and PW3 and belt, Ex.P2 vide seizure memos Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW3/F respectively
3. Arrest Memo PW1 and PW3 (Ex.PW1/D)
4. Post-mortem Report NA
5. FSL Report, Ex.PA7 PW3 State Vs Javed @ Jabir @Raja FIR No. 388/2024 PS Nand Nagri Page 19 of 20 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.03.16 16:56:02 +0530 Chart for Material Objects Material Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by Object No.
1. Weapon of offence i.e. PW1 and sua, Ex.P1 and belt, Ex.P2 PW3 vide seizue memos Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW3/F respectively
2. Clothing accused/victim NA
3. Mobile Phone/Electronic NA Object
4. Vehicle NA
5. Purse/earrings/identity NA card Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2026.03.16 16:56:07 +0530 State Vs Javed @ Jabir @Raja FIR No. 388/2024 PS Nand Nagri Page 20 of 20