Delhi District Court
State vs Bilal. Etc on 12 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. HIMANSHI TYAGI, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-03, TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
JUDGMENT
FIR No. 435/2014 Unique Case ID no. 290576/2014 Title State Vs. Bilal Etc. Name of Complainant Sunny Gupta
Name of Accused 1. Bilal S/o Sh. Shareef R/o House no. 1818/45 Anar Kothi, Malka Ganj, Delhi.
2. Ashraf Ali S/o Abdul Ali R/o House No. 1818/51 Anar Kothi, Malka Ganj, Delhi.
3. Imran Khan S/o Bundu Khan R/o House No. 1818/101 Anar Kothi, Malka Ganj, Delhi.
4. Sanju S/o Sh. Banarsi R/o House No. 1818/80 Anar Kothi, Malka Ganj, Delhi.
Date of institution of challan 22.12.2014 Date of arguments 12.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 12.07.2025 Offence complained of U/s 324/326/34 IPC Offene charged with U/s 324/326/34 IPC Plea of the accused Not Guilty Final order Acquitted State Vs. Bilal Etc Digitally Page no. 1/22 signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date: 2025.07.12 17:17:03 +0530
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE:-
1. The complainant Sh. Shehjan @ Shaizi made complaint Ex PW1/A with police for the allegations that on 07.10.2014 at about 11.30 PM at Amba Cinema, Subzi Mandi, Ghanta Ghar, Delhi all accused persons namely 1. Bilal S/o Sh. Shareef, 2. Ashraf Ali S/o Abdul Ali, 3. Imran Khan S/o Bundu Khan, 4. Sanju S/o Sh. Ba-
narsi started quarrel with him, beaten him with leg blows and stabbed him thrice in his back with a sharp weapon. Pursuant to complaint of victim Sh. Shehjan @ Shaizi an FIR No. 435/2014 was registered under section 324/34 IPC. In view of the MLC of the victim, section 326 IPC was also added in the said FIR. Ac- cordingly, after the investigation, police filed the present charge sheet against all the accused persons for commission of offences punishable under section 324/326/34 IPC.
2. Complete set of charge sheet and other documents were sup- plied to the accused persons. After hearing arguments, charge was framed on 08.12.2015 against all the accused persons by the Ld. Predecessor of the Court for offences punishable under section 324/326/34 IPC, to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution in support of present case has cited total 12 witnesses. Pursuant to recording of statement of accused persons u/s 294 CrPC qua admission and denial of documents, witness cited at 5,7,8,9 and 10 were dropped from the list of witnesses as accused persons had admitted the genuineness of the MLC dated 08.10.2014, X ray report dated 10.10.2014, Report dated State Vs. Bilal Etc Digitally Page no. 2/22 signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.07.12 17:16:59 +0530 08.11.2014 of doctor, DD no. 27A and DD no. 27 B, without ad-
mitting their contents. Overall, only 07 witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
4. PW-1 is Sh. Shehjan @ Shaizi S/o Sh. Rashid who is the in- jured as well as the complainant in the present case. He deposed that he does not remember the exact date when he alongwith his brother had gone to watch movie at Amba Cinema in the night show. He further deposed that he alongwith his brother was watch- ing the movie, there was some quarrel that ensued in the seats ex- actly behind them, they tried to intervene and pacify the persons involved in the quarrel, while retuning to home, the accused per- sons started beating them with feet and they also gave him leg blows. He also deposed that the accused persons were carrying some pointed knife like weapon, they stabbed him thrice in his back with that knife like object, they left him wounded and fled from the scene, he somehow managed to walk down to Gur Mandi where he met one of his known persons, who took him to Hindu Rao Hospital, he remained under treatment for about 7-8 months, he called his brother Faizan to the Hindu Rao Hospital and IO recorded his statement which is Ex.PW1/A. Ld. APP for the State had put leading question to the witness with respect to date of the incident.
5. Ld. Counsel for accused Bilal, Ashraf Ali and Imran Khan cross-examined the above witness and the Ld counsel for accused Sanju adopted the same cross examination. PW1 then deposed he was all alone when he went to watch the movie-Sultan, around 11.45 PM the quarrel took place inside the cinema hall, people State Vs. Bilal Etc Digitally signed by Page no. 3/22 HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.07.12 17:16:54 +0530 were able to gain access without any frisking for checking as it was crowded, persons who were quarreling were not known to him, it was around 12.00 in the midnight so there was no occasion for him to make a complaint about the stabbing to the theater manager, no PCR gypsy or any police arrangement in the vicinity of the spot, he was not carrying any mobile phone, he has not made any call to the police personally. He also deposed that he was profusely bleeding, asked for lift but the driver of the vehicle refused to lift but he per- mitted him to make a telephone call, he called his brother Faizan at about 12.15 AM in the midnight, his brother took him to the hospi- tal upon a motorcycle. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by the police in the hospital which is Ex.PW1/A, he re- mained admitted in the hospital for about 2 months and that ac- cused persons were not known to him prior to the incident.
6. PW2 is Sh. Faizan, the brother of the complainant, who de-
posed that on 07.10.2014, he alongwith his brother Shehjan went to Amba Cinema to watch a movie night show, some persons were keeping their feet on their seats and when they refuted them, they started fighting with them. He deposed that when they came out of cinema, after completing the movie, all the accused persons started fighting with them again, one of the accused persons hit his brother with pipe on his back and ran away, he took his brother to Hindu Rao Hospital, police officials came, in the hospital, he saw one ac- cused and he identified him and informed the IO and IO arrested accused Sanju. He did the mined the accused persons and his sig- nature on arrest memo Ex.PW2/A and on personal search memo Ex.PW2/B. He also deposed that on 31.10.2014, he went to PS to enquire about his cases, he saw other three accused persons sitting, State Vs. Bilal Etc Digitally signed by Page no. 4/22 HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.07.12 17:16:48 +0530 he identified them as perpetrators who attacked on his brother and that IO arrested accused Imran Khan, Ashraf Ali and Bilal. He identified the accused persons and his signatures on arrest memos Ex.PW2/C, Ex.PW2/D and Ex.PW2/E, and personal search memos Ex.PW2/F, Ex.PW2/G and Ex.PW2/H. He was then cross- examination of by Ld. counsel for all accused persons wherein he deposed that he or his brother did not call the police, his statement was recorded at the hospital, statement of his brother was recorded only once, IO did not record the statement of manager of cinema, guard and other public persons watching movie in his presence. He denied the suggestions that no scuffle took place between them and accused persons and that accused persons have been falsely impli- cated by them in the present case. He also deposed that fighting took place inside the cinema and the security guard came there.
7. PW3 is ASI Devanand who was the Duty Officer at PS Roop Nagar at the time of the incident. He deposed about the fact of rukka was received by him through Ct. Bantu Singh sent by HC Balwant, and the fact of registration of the case vide FIR No. 435/14. He brought the original FIR Register copy of the original FIR which is Ex. PW3/A (OSR). He also identified his signatures on the endorsement on original rukka which is Ex. PW3/B and the certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act which is Ex.PW3/C. He was not cross examined despite opportunity.
8. PW4 is Ct. Vijender when deposed that in the intervening night of 7/8.10.2014, he was posted as duty constable with Hindu Rao Hospital and that he handed over one sealed pulinda sealed State Vs. Bilal Etc Digitally signed by Page no. 5/22 HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.07.12 17:16:43 +0530 with the seal of HRH to the IO which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. He was not cross examined despite opportunity.
9. PW4 (inadvertently numbered as PW 4) is Sh. Virender Antil who deposed that he is the in-charge of Amba Cinema, Shakti Nagar, Delhi since 2012, that IO of the present case sent him notice to hand over CCTV footage of dated 07.10.2014 of the show 9.30 PM to 12.30 AM and that he stated to the IO that same was not found in the hard disk. He was duly cross examined by de-
fence counsel.
10. PW5 is Ct. Bantu Kumar who deposed that on 07.10.2014, he was posted as Ct. at PS Roop Nagar in the beat Amba Cinema, at about 11.00 PM, he saw 3-4 boys running outside the Amba Cinema. He caught one boy who was injured and asked the reason as to why he was running, who told him that he had a quarrel with some boys inside the cinema hall, he took the injured inside the cinema hall but he found nothing inside the cinema hall regarding the quarrel, he called his beat HC Balwant and he took the injured to Hindu Rao hospital. He further deposed that HC Balwant alongwith two boys reached at Hindu Rao hospital, one boy namely Shehjan was in injured condition, IO recorded the state- ment of injured Shehjan which is Ex.PW1/A, prepared the rukka and handed it to him for registration of FIR. He deposed that he went to PS Roop Nagar, got the present FIR registered which is Ex.PW3/A, he came back to Hindu Rao Hospital, handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to IO and he further deposed about his formal role in the investigation. He was then cross examined by Ld. counsel for all accused persons wherein he admitted the State Vs. Bilal Etc Digitally signed by Page no. 6/22 HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.07.12 17:16:36 +0530 suggestions that no quarrel/beating was taken place in his presence and that he had not seen the faces of three boys who were also run- ning with accused/injured Sanju. He also deposed that he had not made any enquiry with persons who were present in the cinema hall and no person told him anything regarding the said quarrel. He deposed that he took the accused Sanju to the hospital at around
11.30 PM and the accused did not tell the names of the persons with whom he quarreled.
11. PW 6 is Ct. Anil Kumar, who deposed about deposition of samples in malkhana vide RC No. 101/21/14 and and in FSL, Rohini, Delhi. He deposed that the seals were not tampered with on the sample during his possession. The witness was cross exam- ined by Ld. APP for State. He then deposed that on 31.10.2014 you alongwith IO went to Anar Kothi Malka Ganj, Delhi in search of accused persons, four persons were standing in a street and talking, IO identified one of the accused as Sanju, accused Sanju informed IO that other three persons are the co-accused who were present with him in the fight, all the four persons were brought to PS and IO recorded disclosure statement of accused Imran Khan, Bilal and Ashraf. He identified the accused persons and his signatures on Ex6/A, Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW6/C. His deferred examination could not be done as he passed away and he was dropped as wit- ness vide order dated 23.08.2022 of the Ld Predecessor of the court.
12. PW7 is the Investigation Officer, SI Balwant who deposed that on 07/08.10.2014, Ct. Bantu informed him telephonically that a quarrel took place at Amba Cinema, Shakti Nagar, Delhi and Ct.
State Vs. Bilal Etc Digitally
Page no. 7/22
signed by
HIMANSHI
HIMANSHI TYAGI
TYAGI Date:
2025.07.12
17:16:29
+0530
Bantu had taken injured to HRH Hospital, so he went to HRH Hos- pital at about 11:45PM, he met with injured namely Shehzan @Shaiji, collected MLC of injured from the hospital, recorded statement of said injured, Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that complainant told him that 4 accused persons caused injury to him, one accused namely Sanju was present in the Hospital, he had also sustained injury during the incident, he prepared rukka Ex.PW1/B and handed over the same to Ct. Bantu for registration of FIR. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, accused Sanju was arrested in the hospital vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/B and he along- with brother of complainant namely Faizan went to the spot, pre- pared site plan Ex.PW7/A at the instance of said Faizan, recorded statement of PW Faizan and he collected one sealed pulinda sealed with the seal of HRH containing blood gauge of complainant vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/B. He further deposed that on 31.10.2014, co-accused persons were apprehended from their house at the in- stance of accused Sanju, he arrested accused persons vide arrest memos Ex.PW2/C, Ex.PW2/D, Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/A. He also deposed that on 01.11.2014, accused Imran was taken in the area of Amba Cinema, Ghanta Ghar etc in the search of sharp ob- ject by which injury was caused, however, the same could not be traced and that after completion of investigation he prepared charge-sheet and filed the same before the court. All accused per- sons present in the court were correctly identified by the witness.
13. He was then duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the ac- cused persons wherein he deposed that he received information about the present case at about 11:35 pm from Ct. Bantu, he does not remember the exact time when he reached at the spot, he did State Vs. Bilal Etc Digitally Page no. 8/22 signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.07.12 17:16:24 +0530 not find any eye witness of the incident at that time, he had not recorded the statement of owner of cinema hall or any other em- ployee thereof, he had not inquired about the incident from any shopkeeper at nearby locality as well as cinema hall shop and that he went to the hospital at about 12:00 am. He deposed that nothing was recovered in personal search of accused Sanju, he requested 3- 4 persons to join the investigation but they refused for the same and that no CCTV footage covering the incident was found and correct that the alleged incident took place inside the cinema hall.
14. After examination of the above prosecution witnesses, at re- quest, PE was closed vide order dated 23.08.2022 of the Ld. prede- cessor.
15. Statements of accused persons were recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C by the Ld. Predecessor wherein all the incriminating cir- cumstances appearing in evidence were put to them to which they pleaded innocence and stated they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present matter, complainant falsely impli- cated them in the present case. Accused persons were given an op- portunity for the DE, but they did not lead it. DE was closed upon submissions of accused persons, vide order dated 05.11.2024 of the Ld Predecessor.
16. File was received on 12.06.2025 from the court of Ld. JMFC-05,Central, THC, Delhi pursuant to transfer of PS Roop Nagar to the newly created court of the undersigned, vide order no.
Digitally
State Vs. Bilal Etc signed by
HIMANSHI
Page no. 9/22
HIMANSHI TYAGI
TYAGI Date:
2025.07.12
17:16:16
+0530
16/DHC/Gaz-IIB/G-7/VI. E2(a)2025 dated 30.05.2025 of the Hon'ble High Court, Delhi., ARGUMENTS:
17. Final arguments heard from Ld. APP for the State and from Ld. Counsel for accused Sh. Hari Kishan During final arguments, The Ld. APP urged that testimonies of the material witnesses have remained unchallenged in the cross examination and there is no reason to doubt their testimonies. The Ld. Counsel for the accused persons, on the other hand, argued that material contradictions have appeared in the testimonies of the PWs, weapon of offence has not been recovered, no independent witnesses were examined, accused persons have been falsely implicated due to previous enmity, prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused persons .
FINDINGS AND REASONS THEREOF:-
18. I have heard the arguments advanced by both parties and also perused the record as well as evidence of all the witnesses. I have gone through the statement of witnesses and documents on record.
19. The accused persons have been charged for the offence punishable u/s 323/326/34 IPC. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution was required to establish the ingredients of the offences as mentioned u/s 324 and 326 IPC.
State Vs. Bilal Etc Digitally
signed by
Page no. 10/22
HIMANSHI
HIMANSHI TYAGI
TYAGI Date:
2025.07.12
17:16:10
+0530
Section 324 IPC: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means- Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either de- scription for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 326 IPC: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means- Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with State Vs. Bilal Etc Digitally signed by Page no. 11/22 HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.07.12 17:16:05 +0530 imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
20. Under the Indian criminal jurisprudence an accused is presumed to be in innocent until proven guilty. It is a settled law that the prosecution has to stand on its own legs to substantiate the allegations as set out in the FIR and has to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts by way of clear and reliable evidences. Punishment of an accused person on the basis of suspicion has been held to be not permissible. Suspicion alone, howsoever grave, cannot give probative value to testimony which in itself is insufficient to establish or justify an inference of a particular fact.
21. In the light of above principles of law, this Court will now appreciate the testimony of prosecution witness and material on record and in order to find out whether prosecution has been successful in proving guilt against accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts or not.
22. To prove its case u/s. 324/326/34 IPC against the accused persons, the Prosecution was required to prove the following ingredients:
(i). That the victim suffered simple injuries by way of sharp-edged weapon;
(ii). That the victim suffered grievous injuries by way of sharp-edged weapon;
State Vs. Bilal Etc Digitally
signed by
Page no. 12/22
HIMANSHI
HIMANSHI TYAGI
TYAGI Date:
2025.07.12
17:15:57
+0530
(iii). That the injuries were caused voluntarily by the accused persons;
(iv). That all the accused persons acted under common intention.
23. The fact of injuries with the help of sharp-edged weapon stands established by way of MLC No. 7028/14 of victim Saizi@Shehzan, which is Ex.A1. The perusal of the said MLC clearly mentions that the complainant had suffered following injuries:
(i). Incised wound 2cm x 1cm on his diff back.
(ii). Incised wound 2cm x 1cm on mid back.
(iii). incised wound 1.5cm x 1cm on back mid.
24. Vide second MLC of the victim, which is Ex A3, the nature of injury is stated to be dangerous. Thus, it becomes evident that victim suffered injuries by means of a deadly weapon. The nature of injuries mentioned in the MLC Ex A1 is self explanatory to show that the same are grievous in nature. It is further evident from the record that the victim remained in the hospital for the treatment of the above injuries for almost a period of 02 months and by virtue of definition of grievous hurt provided in Section 320 IPC, Eighty clause, the injuries can easily said to be grievous. As far as causing simple hurt is concerned, as per the testimony of PW1/victim, the accused persons had beaten him and gave him leg blows, hence it also stands proved that simple hurt was also caused to the victim.
25. Next it is to be seen whether the prosecution has been able to prove that the accused persons namely Bilal, Ashraf Ali, Imran Digitally signed by State Vs. Bilal Etc HIMANSHI Page no. 13/22 HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.07.12 17:15:49 +0530 Khan and Sanju had caused the above discussed injuries, in furtherance of their common intention, to the victim or not.
26. The prosecution has examined two public/eye witnesses in this case, i.e the injured/the complainant examined as PW 1 and the brother of the injured, examined as PW2. The other two important witness are PW5 who is Ct Bantu who was on beat duty in the area of the incident and at the time of incident and PW7 who is the investigation officer. The other witnesses are formal witnesses only.
27. Since, PW1/ Complainant is victim as well as one of the eye witness, he can be also categorised as injured eye witness with whom alleged incident of causing simple and grievous injuries with the use of sharp edged weapon had occurred. It is a settled law that testimony of injured witness is considered to be very reliable and is accorded a special status in law. The evidence of injured eye witness carries due weightage on the notion that injury itself is inbuilt guarantee of truthfulness In the case of Bhajan Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 421, where it was held as follows:
"The evidence of the stamped witness must be given due weightage as his presence on the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lands support to his testimony that he was present at the time of occurrence.
State Vs. Bilal Etc Digitally
Page no. 14/22
signed by
HIMANSHI
HIMANSHI TYAGI
TYAGI Date:
2025.07.12
17:15:43
+0530
Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Such a witness comes with a built in guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone. Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness." [Reliance is also placed upon Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab (2009) 9 SCC 719; Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra (2010) 6 SCC 673; Abdul Sayed v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 10 SCC 259 and State of U.P. v. Naresh & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 324]
28. However, the extent of weightage that should be given to testimony of eye witness/victim, depends upon multiple factors including facts and circumstances of particular case and attending circumstances. An eye witness may depose untruthfully because of myriad reason. The question of weight to be attached to a particular piece of evidence depends upon the given facts and circumstances.
29. PW 2, Faizal, is the brother of the victim and is also an eye witness. It is a settled proposition of law that testimony of interested witness or person is closely related to complainant can be relied upon by the Court in support of prosecution case. However, this needs to be done with proper care and caution, and with a vision to ensure that the administration of criminal justice is not undermined by the overzealousness of the interested person. Regarding interested witness in the case of Ram Bharosey v State of UP AIR 2010 SC 917, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated thus:
Digitally signed by State Vs. Bilal Etc HIMANSHI Page no. 15/22 HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.07.12 17:15:37 +0530 "An interested witness is one who is interested in securing the conviction of a person out of vengeance or enmity or due to dispute and deposes before the Court only with that intention and not to further the cause of justice. The law relating to appreciation of evidence of an interested witness is well settled, according to which, the version of an interested witness cannot be thrown overboard, but has to examined carefully before accepting the same."
30. The juxtaposition of the testimony of PW1, PW2, PW 5 and PW 7 shows that the testimony of prosecution witnesses are not consistent with each other. The inconsistencies in their testimonies are discussed as follows;
31. First inconsistency is observed with respect to the facts preceding the incident. In other words, the reason of incident of quarrel in which the injuries were allegedly caused. In his examination in chief, PW1/victim deposed that he had gone alongwith his brother to watch a night show of movie at Amba Cinema and there some quarrel ensued in the seats behind them and he alongwith his brother tried to intervene and pacify the same.
32. However, as per the testimony of PW2, the quarrel took place inside the cinema hall as 'some persons were keeping their feet on their seats and when they refuted, they started beating'. The reason for quarrel with 'some persons' inside the cinema hall is not given clearly by PW1 and his version given in his examination in State Vs. Bilal Etc Digitally signed by Page no. 16/22 HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.07.12 17:15:32 +0530 chief is in fact inconsistent with his own version given in his compliant which is Ex PW1/A.
33. Second inconsistency is observed with respect to the type of weapon used to caused injuries. It is an essential ingredient of offence u/s 324 IPC as well for offence u/s 326 IPC that the injuries were caused by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death.
34. PW1 deposed that when after the move, they were returning to their home, they were intercepted by the accused persons and they started beating him with feet, gave leg blows and stabbed him in his back with a knife like weapon. PW 2 deposed that when they came out of cinema, after completing the movies, the accused persons starting fighting with them and 'one of the accused persons' hit his brother with a pipe on his back. The testimony of PW2 is entirely silent about use of a knife like weapon and the testimony of PW1 is silent about use of pipe. The prosecution never made any effort before the court to clarify the nature and type of weapon used to cause injuries on the back of the victim. No question was put to either of the witness as to show that referral to knife like weapon by PW1 and to pipe by PW2 was referral to same weapon or to two different weapons. Since no weapon of offence was seized or recovered in the present case, the description of weapon and removal of doubts about the type of the weapon could have gone a long way to aid the prosecution in its case. In absence of recovery of weapon, the doubts about the type of weapon remains.
Digitally
signed by
State Vs. Bilal Etc HIMANSHI
HIMANSHI TYAGI
Page no. 17/22
TYAGI Date:
2025.07.12
17:15:26
+0530
35. Third inconsistency is observed with respect to the person who took the injured Shehjan/PW1 to the hospital. PW1 deposed in examination in chief that he somehow managed to walk down to Gur Mandi, met one of his known persons there and the said person took him to Hindu Rao Hospital and that he called his brother to Hindu Rao Hospital. Contrarily, in his cross examination he deposed that he asked for a lift, the driver refused but the driver allowed him to call his brother so he called his brother and then his brother took him to Hospital. In contrast to this, PW2 deposed that he took his brother to the Hospital and the police came in the Hospital. PW 5 Ct Bantu deposed that IO Balwant Singh brought the two boys in the hospital and one of them was Shehjan, the PW1. IO Balwant Singh, PW7 deposed that Ct Bantu informed him that he has taken the injured to the hospital and he met the injured Shehjan in the hospital. Thus there is shadow of doubt over the version of the witnesses as to who took the victim to the hospital. If the version of PW1 is considered to be true and taken at face value, as he is an injured, there is no explanation for contradiction in his statements given in his examination in chief and the cross examination on the aspect as to who took him to the hospital. If the version of his brother/eye witness PW2 is considered to be true, then the version of PW5 and PW7 has to be discarded. Thus, it has not been proved before the court as to who took the injured to the hospital.
36. Fourth inconsistency is observed with respect to the accused persons who used the deadly weapon. As per deposition of PW1, all accused persons attacked him and stabbed him thrice with a sharp weapon. Use of single weapon at the same time by four State Vs. Bilal Etc Digitally signed by Page no. 18/22 HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.07.12 17:15:21 +0530 persons together is certainly not possible. PW1 did not take name of any specific person who caused the injuries using the said weapon. Apart from existence of common intention, the prosecution ought to have brought on record some evidence about the user of the sharp/deadly weapon. Once the act of causing injury using sharp/deadly weapon, by any of the four accused persons, had been proved only then the active participation of the remaining three accused persons and the existence of common intention between them could have been examined. The court is mindful of the fact that since the injury and sharp weapon was used on back of victim, in a sudden fight, the victim may not have had the opportunity to see the particular assailant. However, PW1 had deposed in his cross examination that he had sufficient opportunity to see and observe the accused persons and so he was able to identify them. Hence, the omission by PW1 to name the accused person who used the sharp/deadly weapon becomes a major lacunae in this case. Further, on the aspect of assailant who used the weapon, the assistance could have been provided by other eye witness. PW2 had deposed that 'one of the accused persons hit his brother with pipe'. But which one of the accused persons did so has not been stated by him during evidence before this court. Also, it is pertinent to note that the above portion of statement of PW2 is qua a use of pipe and not the sharp/deadly/knife like weapon.
37. Fifth inconsistency is observed with respect to the time of the incident. There is also inconsistency as to whether the quarrel took place inside cinema or outside cinema. PW2 deposed that they went for the midnight show at 9:00 to 12:00 of movie Sultan in Amba Cinema and quarrel with some persons took place inside Digitally State Vs. Bilal Etc signed by HIMANSHI Page no. 19/22 HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.07.12 17:15:14 +0530 the cinema and the accused persons started fighting with them again, out of the cinema. Similarly PW1 deposed that they were attacked by accused persons after the movie. However, PW5 Ct Bantu has deposed that on 07.10.2014 at about 11:00 PM, he saw 3-4 boys running outside the cinema, which were later found to be the accused persons, and they told him about quarrel inside the cinema. The version of PW5 regarding the time and place of incident of the quarrel is certainly inconsistent with that given by PW2 and PW1. As per PW1 and PW2, incident took place after movie i.e; after/around 12:00 PM. But as per PW5, he was already informed of quarrel at about 11:00 PM. The difference/inconsistency in time gap is material, though not material in every case but is so in the present case, as the timings of the said movie show provide a clear time frame. The time of end of movie could have been easily ascertained by the IO had he conducted investigation in this regard from the concerned cinema hall. But he did not so. As evident from record, the movie tickets of the said show has not been seized, neither from the victim or his brother nor from the accused persons. Therefore, the time as well as the place of incident, whether it was inside cinema hall or outside cinema hall, have not been proved beyond doubt by the prosecution before the court.
38. There are other inconsistencies as well in the present case. PW5 deposed that he reached the spot of incident at around 11:00 pm as he was on beat duty of the said area and he saw 3-4 boys running outside Amba Cinema Hall, who then told him about quarrel inside cinema hall. He then deposed that he inquired about quarrel but did not find anything about quarrel, so he took injured Digitally State Vs. Bilal Etc signed by HIMANSHI Page no. 20/22 HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.07.12 17:15:09 +0530 accused Sanju to the hospital. He deposed in his cross examination that he did not see the face of other three boys who were running with Sanju. As per arrest memo, accused Sanju was arrested in the hospital by the IO as he had also got injured. However, the remaining three accused persons were arrested upon disclosure of accused Sanju and were later identified in police station by PW2. There is no independent witness to depose about presence of accused Imran, Ashraf and Bilal at the spot of incident. The testimony of PW5 could have but did not corroborate the version given by PW2 about the presence of these three accused persons. Further, as per the version of PW5 the quarrel took place inside the cinema hall. The same casts doubts about the truthfulness of the version of the incident given by the prosecution.
39. In the case at hand, the weapon of offence was not recovered. No description. about the weapon was provided before the court during trial. Even though the incident allegedly took place after the movie show, no other cinema goer of the same movie was cited or examined by the prosecution. No other independent or public witness to the said incident was examined before the court qua the incident. The owner or staff of the cinema hall was neither cited nor examined by the prosecution to prove the incident. No CCTV recording of incident was available and PW4 Virender Antil deposed about non availability of the same. It seems that despite existence of the CCTVs at the spot of incident, no timely efforts were made by the IO to seize the same.
40. When seen cumulatively, the above discussed inconsistencies dents the case of the prosecution and punches Digitally signed by State Vs. Bilal Etc HIMANSHI Page no. 21/22 HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.07.12 17:15:03 +0530 holes in the credibility of the witnesses. In criminal cases, the guilt of the accused for the alleged crime should be proved beyond any reasonable doubt. The rule is that whoever alleges a fact must prove it. In a criminal trial it is the prosecution who alleges that the accused has committed the offence with requisite mens-rea and so the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the same. There should be no doubt whether the accused is guilty or not. If there is slightest doubt, no matter how small it is, the benefit will go the accused.
41. In view of the above discussions, the Court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has not been able to prove the charges of Section 324/326/34 IPC against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt as there exist inconsistencies in the version of the prosecution witnesses. Thus, the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the accused persons. Accordingly, accused persons namely Bilal, Sanju, Imran Khan & Ashraf Ali are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 324/326/34 IPC on the basis of benefit of doubt.
42. Ordered accordingly. Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2025.07.12 Pronounced in open Court on 17:14:46 +0530 12.07.2025 (Himanshi Tyagi) Metropolitan Magistrate-03 Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi The Judgment contains 22 pages and each page has been signed by the undersigned.
State Vs. Bilal Etc Page no. 22/22
State Vs. Bilal Etc Page no. 23/22