Delhi District Court
State vs Kulwant Singh on 5 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ISRA ZAIDI: JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-04, NORTH EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
JUDGMENT
Cr. No. of the case 464095/2015 CNR Number DLNE02-000-230-2008 FIR Number 411/2006 Police Station Khajuri Khas Name of the ASI Ravi Karan Complainant/Informant
Name of the Accused, his parentage 1. Jai Bhagwan, S/o Hari Ram
and address Goyal
2. Anand Trivedi, S/o Krishna
Nand Trivedi
3. Aurangzeb, S/o Jamaluddin
4. Bhure Khan, S/o Noor
Mohammad
5. Imtiyaz, S/o Rahis
6. Mobin, S/o Muradi
7. Mobinuddin, S/o Azimuddin
8. Akil Ahmad, S/o Shahid Ali
9. Bimlesh, S/o Ram Murti Lal
10. Chaman Ahmed, S/o Yunus
Ahmad
11. Sanjay, S/o Shankar
12. Khaliq, S/o Naseeb Khan
Date of Commission of offence 20.09.2006
Date of institution 30.08.2008
Cr. Case No. 464095/2015 State vs. Kulwant Singh and ors. Page No. 1/18
Digitally signed
ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI
Date:
2026.01.05
ZAIDI 16:44:18
+0530
Offences complained of U/s 147/148/149/186/332/353/
427 IPC & 3/4 PDPP ACT
Offences charged of U/s 147/148/149/186/332/353/
427 IPC & 3 PDPP ACT
Plea of the Accused Pleaded not guilty
Date of final arguments 05.01.2026
Date of pronouncement of Judgment 05.01.2026 Final Order Acquittal BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
01. Succinctly stated the facts discernible from the present complaint are that on 20.09.2006, at about 11:45 AM at Khajuri Khas Chowk Delhi, that all accused persons in furtherance of common object alongwith co-accused formed an unlawful assembly committed rioting being armed with deadly weapon and in furtherance to common object alongwith co-accused obstructed public servants in discharge of their official duties and voluntarily caused hurt and used criminal force against public servants to deter them to discharge their official duties and also caused damaged to public property. Thereafter, an FIR U/s 147/148/149/186/332/353/427 IPC & 3/4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act (hereinafter referred as PDPP Act) was registered against them.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
02. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under sections 147/148/149/186/332/353/427 IPC and 3/4 PDPP Act was filed before the court against all the accused persons. The then Learned Magistrate took Cr. Case No. 464095/2015 State vs. Kulwant Singh and ors. Page No. 2/18 Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: ZAIDI 2026.01.05 16:44:28 +0530 cognizance of the offence on 28.06.2010 and the 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 22.03.2025 charge for the offences under sections 147/148/149/186/332/353/427 IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act 1984 was framed by this Court against accused persons namely (1) Jai Bhagwan, (2) Anand Trivedi, (3) Aurangzeb, S/o Jamaluddin (4) Bhure Khan, (5) Imtiyaz, (6) Mobin, (7) Mobinuddin, (8) Akil Ahmed, (9) Bimlesh Kumar, (10) Chaman Ahmad and (11) Sanjay and vide order dated 26.07.2025, charge for the offences under sections 147/148/149/186/332/353/427 IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act 1984 was framed by this Court against accused Khaliq to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Additional charge u/s 174 A IPC was framed against the accused Khaliq to which he pleaded guilty and did not claim trial. Thereafter, the matter was listed for PE.
03. In order to prove and substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined 14 witnesses despite having been given numbers opportunities to the prosecution.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES S.No. Witness number Name of the witness
1. PW1 Sushil Kummar (driver DDC Bus)
2. PW2 Sh. Kusumvir Singh
3. PW3 Sh. Bhupendra Kumar (photographer)
4. PW4 SI Balak Ram
5. PW5 Retd. ACP BP Sharma Cr. Case No. 464095/2015 State vs. Kulwant Singh and ors. Page No. 3/18 Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: ZAIDI 2026.01.05 16:44:43 +0530
6. PW6 Dr. P.K. Phukan
7. PW7 ASI Hansraj
8. PW8 SI Jagmal
9. PW9 Inspector Satender Pal Singh Tomar
10. PW10 Retd. SI Surendra Kumar
11. PW11 ASI Jeet Pal
12. PW12 SI Jag Pal
13. PW13 Retd. SI Ravi Karan
14. PW14 Inspector Hansraj Swami STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C
04. The accused persons stated in their statement that they were falsely implicated in the present case by the police officials as the present case was politically motivated.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
05. The Court heard final arguments on behalf of the both the parties on 05.01.2026. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons submitted that the case against the accused persons is false and frivolous and has prayed that the accused persons be acquitted of the offences charged. Ld. Substitute APP for the State submitted that accused persons 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. Substitute APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. The Court has also diligently gone Cr. Case No. 464095/2015 State vs. Kulwant Singh and ors. Page No. 4/18 Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: ZAIDI 2026.01.05 16:44:57 +0530 through the charge-sheet, documents, evidence recorded and the entire material on record.
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUST DECISION OF THE CASE:
06. The prosecution has a duty to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no duty on an accused to purge himself of guilt. Where there is a lingering doubt, the accused person is given the benefit of the doubt. A Court cannot draw an inference of guilt from mere suspicion. Suspicion, no matter how strong cannot take the place of legal proof.
07. In the instant case, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had to prove the following ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 147/148/149/186/332/353/427 IPC & Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property (PDPP) Act 1984.
Section 147 IPC Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 148 IPC Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 149 IPC If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the Cr. Case No. 464095/2015 State vs. Kulwant Singh and ors. Page No. 5/18 Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.01.05 ZAIDI 16:45:07 +0530 time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.
Section 186 IPC 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.
Section 332 IPC 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 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 427 IPC Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 3 in The Prevention Of Damage To Public Property Act, 1984.
3. Mischief causing damage to public property(1)Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property, other than public property of the nature referred to in sub-section (2), shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine.(2)Whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property being(a)any building, installation or other property used in connection with the production, distribution or supply of water, light, power or energy;(b)any oil installations;(c)any sewage works;(d)any mine or factory;(e)any means of public transportation or Cr. Case No. 464095/2015 State vs. Kulwant Singh and ors. Page No. 6/18 Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.01.05 ZAIDI 16:45:16 +0530 of tele-communications, or any building, installation or other property used in connection therewith, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to five years and with fine:Provided that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded in its judgment, award a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.
08. 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 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)."
09. 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 Cr. Case No. 464095/2015 State vs. Kulwant Singh and ors. Page No. 7/18 Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: ZAIDI 2026.01.05 16:45:25 +0530 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. PW-1 deposed that on 20.09.2006 at about 11.00 AM he was driving one DTC bus DL1P3823 and when he reached at Khajuri Chowk. About 200-250 persons were pelting stones in the vehicles including his bus. Thereafter, he left his driver seat and came in the mid of his bus. After sometime police officials came and recorded his statement. He could not identified the accused persons due to lapse of time. He was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel. Even after being cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State, he could not identify the accused.
11. PW-2 deposed that he did not remember the exact date and month but in the year of 2006 two DTC buses DL1PB2645 and DL1PB2313 were standing at PS Khajuri Khas in damaged condition. He mechanically inspected both the vehicles and found that the glasses of both the vehicles from the four sides were damaged. PW2 was not an eye witness to the incident.
12. PW-3 deposed that he had been running one photo studio on the name of Sanjana Studio at Khajuri Khas, Gyani Mandir. He was called by the beat officer of that area to click the photographs. Accordingly he went to the spot i.e. the mid road of Bhajanpura and Yamuna Vihar. He clicked the photographs of the damaged buses and broken glasses. He was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel except by the Counsel of Aurangzeb. He testified in his cross examination that he had not handed over the negatives of the above-mentioned photographs as it was not prevalent at that point of time. He further testified Cr. Case No. 464095/2015 State vs. Kulwant Singh and ors. Page No. 8/18 Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: ZAIDI 2026.01.05 16:45:35 +0530 that he had not given any certificate u/s 65 B I.E.A. He denied the other suggestion given by the Ld. Counsel for Aurangzeb.
13. PW-4 deposed that on 20.09.2006, he was posted at PS Khajuri Khas as Ct. on that day he was performing regiment duty at Khajuri Chowk. As on that day it was a ban due to the sealing. At about 11 AM some political leaders came and they intimidated the public persons and thereafter those public persons started pelting stones. In that event vehicles present at the road were also got damaged. SHO PS concerned tried to pacify the public persons but the public persons continued their acts. He could not identified the accused persons due to lapse of long time of 20 years. He was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel. Even after being cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State, he could not identify the accused.
14. PW-5 deposed that on 20.09.2006 he was posted at PS Khajuri as an Inspector (Investigation). At about 11 AM he was performing his duty at Khajuri Khas Chowk, Wazirabad Road along with the staff members namely SI Satender Singh, ASI Ravi Karan and ASI Asiq Ali. In the meantime, accused persons namely Jai Bhagwan, Anand Trivedi, Sardar Kulwant Singh and Raj Kumar Bhati were delivering hate speeches. 200-250 persons came and they started attacking the buses. He alongwith his staff members tried to pacify them. Thereafter, tear gas was also used. When they did not listen to them so they apprehended the accused persons. Jai Bhagwan Goyal, Anand Trivedi, Raj Kumar Bhati had fled away from the spot after delivering the speeches. Public persons attacked the buses. He could not identified the accused persons due to lapse of time. He was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsels except counsel for Accused Jai Bhagwan. On being asked Cr. Case No. 464095/2015 State vs. Kulwant Singh and ors. Page No. 9/18 Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: ZAIDI 2026.01.05 16:45:46 +0530 by Ld. Defence Counsel whether he had stated in his statement that accused persons had infact used words while they were delivering the hate speech. After going through his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C he states that it is not mentioned what exact words were being used by the accused persons in their hat speech. Even after being cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State, he could not identify the accused.
15. PW-6 deposed that he was working in GTB hospital since the year 2006. Dr Hitesh was working as JR in the year 2006. He could identify the hand writing and signatures of Dr. Hitesh as he had seen him writing and signing during ordinary course of duty. MLC NO. A-4266 of Hansraj was Ex.PW6/A bearing his signature at Point A. MLC No. D-3 of HC Jagpal was Ex.PW6/B bearing his signature at point A.
16. PW-7 deposed that on 20.09.2006 he was posted at PS Khajuri Khas. The protest was held at Khajuri Chowk. He went around at the spot wherein he saw that accused Anand Trivedi, Jai Bhagwan Goyal and about 250 persons had stuck the road and a traffic jam was caused. Inspector BP Sharma tried to make the accused understand but they did not pay any heed. After that violence erupted and incited the peoples present there. In order to control the situation Inspector BP Sharma asked to shoot the Gas Gun. They vandalised the private vehicles broke the glasses of windows of 3-4 DTC Buses. After that 15-16 accused persons were arrested. IO recorded his statement. He could not identified the accused persons. He was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel. Even after being cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State, he could not identify the accused.
Cr. Case No. 464095/2015 State vs. Kulwant Singh and ors. Page No. 10/18 Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI
Date:
ZAIDI 2026.01.05
16:45:57 +0530
17. PW-8 deposed that on 20.09.2006 he was posted at PS Khajuri Khas. The protest was held at Khajuri Chowk and he was deployed for security alongwith other staff under the supervision of Inspector BP Sharma and ASI Satender Tomar since morning on that day. A mob of around 250 persons were gathered there which was headed by Anand Trivedi, Jai Bhagwan Goyal, Raj Kumar and Kulwant Singh etc and they started giving inciting speeches to the mob and the mob caused the traffic jam at the spot. Inspector BP Sharma tried to make the accused persons understand but they did not pay any heed. After that violence erupted and incited the people present on the spot. In order to control the situation Inspector BP Sharma asked to shot the Gas Gun. He further deposed that they vandalized the private vehicles, broke the glasses of windows of 3-4 DTC buses. After that 15-16 accused persons were arrested and Jai Bhagwan and Anand Trivedi managed to fled away from the spot. IO recorded his statement. The damaged buses and some bricks and stones were seized. Accused Anand Trivedi was present in the court and correctly identified by him. He could not identify the other persons due to lapse of time.
18. PW-9 deposed that he was posted at PS Khajuri Khas. The protest was held at Khajuri Chowk and he was deployed there for security along with other staff under the supervision of Inspector BP Sharma and ASI Ravi Dutt since morning on that day. A mob of around 250 persons was gathered there which was headed by Anand Trivedi, Jai Bhagwan Goyal, Raj Kumar and Kulwant Singh etc. and they started giving inciting speeches to the mob and the mob caused traffic jam at the spot. Inspector BP Sharma tried to make the accused persons understand but they did not pay any heed. After that violence erupted and incited the people present at the spot. In order to control the situation Cr. Case No. 464095/2015 State vs. Kulwant Singh and ors. Page No. 11/18 Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.01.05 ZAIDI 16:46:08 +0530 inspector BP Sharma asked to show the Gas Gun. They vandalized the private vehicles, broke the glasses of windows of 3-4 DTC Buses. After that 15-16 accused persons were arrested and Jai Bhagwan and Anand Trivedi managed to fled away from the spot. IO recorded his statement. The damaged buses and some bricks and stones were seized. He could not identified the accused persons due to lapse of time. Witness correctly identified 13 photographs from the judicial file. He was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
19. PW-10 deposed that on 20.09.2006 he was posted at PS Khajuri Khas as HC as duty officer. At about 3 PM Ct. Balakram came to PS for registration of FIR. Ct. Balakram handed over rukka Ex.PW10/A to him. On the basis of that, he registered the FIR Ex.PW1/B bearing his signature at point A. He handed over copy of FIR and original Tehrir to Ct. Balakram. He called crime team to visit the spot where the IO was present. He was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
20. PW-11 deposed that on 20.09.2006 he was posted at PS Khajuri Khas as Ct. He was appointed on duty at Khajuri Chowk, Wazirabad Road. At about 11:15 AM some politicians namely Jai Bhagwan Goyal, Kulwant Singh, Raj Kumar and Anand Trivedi were doing protest against sealing. Accused Raj Kumar was giving provocative speeches and said "Agar yahan kisi ko goli lagegi to pehli goli mujhe lagegi". After this inducement, about 200-250 persons started moving towards Wazirabad Road. Inspector BP Sharma tried to stop them but those persons did not uderstand and they had jammed the road. They also started moving towards Wazirabad Road. He further deposed that they also started pelting stones upon the police officials. One accused namely Sanjay s/o Shankar had damaged himself by attacking upon the front light of Cr. Case No. 464095/2015 State vs. Kulwant Singh and ors. Page No. 12/18 Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: ZAIDI 2026.01.05 16:46:19 +0530 the DTC bus through his head. Thereafter, PCR van had taken him to GTB hospital. To disburse this assembly, Inspector BP Sharma ordered for the tear gases. Accordingly it was followed. Thereafter, 16 accused were arrested. Thereafter he left the spot and reached PS. He could not identified the accused persons due to lapse of time. On being cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsels he testified that he could not identify the accused persons by their names. He denied all other suggestions made by Ld. Defence Counsel.
21. PW-12 deposed that on 20.09.2006 he was posted at PS Khajuri Khas as HC. He was appointed on duty at Khajuri Chowk, Wazirabad Road. At about 11:15 AM some politicians namely Jai Bhagwan Goyal, Kulwant Singh, Raj Kumar and Anand Trivedi were doing protest against sealing. Accused Raj Kumar was giving provocative speeches and said "Agar yahan kisi ko goli lagegi to pehli goli mujhe lagegi". After this inducement, about 200-250 persons started moving towards Wazirabad Road. Inspector BP Sharma tried to stop them but those persons did not uderstand and they had jammed the road. They also started moving towards Wazirabad Road. They also started pelting stones upon the police officials. One accused namely Sanjay s/o Shankar had damaged himself by attacking upon the front light of the DTC bus through his head. Thereafter, PCR van had taken him to GTB hospital. To disburse this assembly, Inspector BP Sharma ordered for the tear gases. Accordingly it was followed. Thereafter, 16 accused were arrested. Thereafter he left the spot and reached PS. He could not identify the accused persons due to lapse of time. He was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel. Even after being cross- examined by Ld. APP for the State, he could not identify the accused.
Cr. Case No. 464095/2015 State vs. Kulwant Singh and ors. Page No. 13/18 Digitally signedISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.01.05 ZAIDI 16:46:33 +0530
22. PW-13 deposed that on 20.09.2006, he was posted at PS Khajuri Khas as ASI. On that day he was on arrangement duty at Khajuri Chowk, Wazirabad. Inspector V.P Sharma, SI Satendra, Ct. Hans Raj, Ct. Parvender and other police staff members were also present there. One meeting was going on there and accused Jai Bhagwan Goel was delivering his speech. During that speech, he also delivered hate speech due to which public persons gathered on the road. Some of them had broken down DTC bus and they also started pelting stones. Inspector VP Sharma also sustained injuries in this incident. One more police officer also suffered due to the above-mentioned incident.. He identified 2-4 accused persons among them. Witness identified Anand Trivedi, Akil Ahmad and other persons by their faces.
23. In his cross-examination PW13 testified that it was correct that several persons were coming via using the aforesaid road. There were approx 200-250 public persons nearby the spot. He further testified that no independent person was made witness at the time of preparation of arrest memo. He further testified that it was correct that the time mentioned of the arrest was 6 PM in all the arrest memos. He also testified that there was a densely populated market area at the adjacent of the spot. He testified that no shopkeeper was made witness in the present case as well as no CCTV footage were recovered from the shopkeepers market.
24. PW-14 deposed that on 20.09.2006 he was under training at PTS Wazirabad as Ct. On that day he was instructed to join his duty at Khajuri Khas Chowk for Law and Order duty. Accordingly, he reached there, he saw that already an agitation was going on there. Some leaders were delivering speeches. They also provoked the crowd due to which the crowd available had Cr. Case No. 464095/2015 State vs. Kulwant Singh and ors. Page No. 14/18 Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.01.05 ZAIDI 16:46:42 +0530 choked the road. They also started pelting stones at Police Officials and public sustained injuries as someone from them had pelted stone and it caused injuries in his head. Thereafter he was taken to the GTB Hospital, where his MLC was conducted. He could not identify the accused persons as there were several persons in the crowd. He was not cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
25. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with the identity of the accused in the case of Ashraf vs State held as under:-
"....However, in case a witness is completely hostile with re- gard to identity of the accused even in his examination-in- chief and nothing could be elicited from him to show the in- volvement of the accused in the offence in the cross-exami- nation by the APP, such a testimony cannot be accepted and made the basis of the conviction....."
26. PW1, PW4, PW5, PW7, PW9, PW11, PW12, PW14 were the witnesses to the incident, they could not identify the accused persons in their examination in chief and PW13 was the witness to the incident and he could not identify all accused except Anand Trivedi. They were also confronted with their previous statements. They also deposed in their cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State that they could not identify the accused persons present in the Court. No evidence could be brought on record by the prosecution against the accused persons. PW2 and PW3 were not an eye-witnesses to the incident.
27. PW HC Ramesh Chand, PW Ct. Parminder, PW Babloo, PW Sudershan, PW Yamuna Prasad, PW ASI Ashiq Ali, PW Suraj Prakash, PW Faninder Dev, PW Dharam Pal Singh, PW Gulab Singh, PW Vinod Kumar, the other witnesses in the present case could not be examined by the prosecution as they Cr. Case No. 464095/2015 State vs. Kulwant Singh and ors. Page No. 15/18 Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.01.05 ZAIDI 16:46:54 +0530 remained unserved through DCP. They were also dropped from the list of witnesses. There were no independent public witness produced despite several being allegedly present. No statement of any public persons were recorded, who were present at the spot at the time of the incident. The identity of accused persons could not be proved by the above-mentioned witnesses. Non examination of these witnesses also casts a serious dent on the story of the prosecution.
28. The lack of any independent witness casts serious doubt on the prosecution story, especially regarding identity of the accused persons. 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.
29. Adverting to the testimonies of the police witnesses, mere testimonies of the police witnesses are insufficient and cannot be made a sole basis of the conviction of the accused persons.
30. In a criminal trial, the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the identity of the accused persons at the relevant time has not been established beyond doubt. 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 persons. In the case of Prem Singh Yadav Vs. CBI 178 (2011) DLT 529, it was held that Cr. Case No. 464095/2015 State vs. Kulwant Singh and ors. Page No. 16/18 Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.01.05 ZAIDI 16:47:04 +0530 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 accused person to purge himself of guilt. Where there is a lingering doubt, the accused person is given the benefit of the doubt.
31. 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.
32. Consequently, accused persons namely 1. Jai Bhagwan, 2. Anand Trivedi, 3. Aurangzeb S/o Jamaluddin, 4. Bhure Khan, 5. Imtiyaz, 6. Mobin, 7. Mobinudin, 8. Akil Ahmad, 9. Bimlesh, 10. Chaman Ahmed, 11. Sanjay, 12. Khaliq, are Acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 147/148/149/186/332/353/427 IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Properties (PDPP) Act 1984.
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA ZAIDI
Date:
ZAIDI 2026.01.05
16:47:13
+0530
(ISRA ZAIDI)
JMFC04/NE/KKD/DELHI
05.01.2026
Cr. Case No. 464095/2015 State vs. Kulwant Singh and ors. Page No. 17/18
File be consigned to record room after due compliance. Announced in the open Court today i.e. 05.01.2026. This judgment contains 18 pages and each page bears my signature.
Digitally signedISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.01.05 ZAIDI 16:47:23 +0530 (ISRA ZAIDI) JMFC04/NE/KKD/DELHI 05.01.2026 Cr. Case No. 464095/2015 State vs. Kulwant Singh and ors. Page No. 18/18