Delhi District Court
State vs Naveen (Po File) on 29 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHISHEK GOYAL, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-03, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
FIR No.: 117/2001
PS.: Maurice Nagar
U/s.: 308/174A/34 IPC
State Vs. Naveen
(a) SC Case No. 554/2023
(b) CNR No. DLCT01-014034-2023
(c) Date of commission 04.09.2001 at around 08:45 p.m.
of offence
(d) Name of the Sh. Amit Kumar Raj, S/o. Sh. Tulsi
complainant Ram, R/o. Sodagar Mohalla,
Ramgarh Cantt., Dist. Hazari Bagh,
Jharkhand; Presently at: D-403,
Godrej Oasis, Sector-881,
Gurugram, Haryana.
(e) Name of the Naveen, S/o. Sh. Rajpal, R/o. H.
accused person(s), No. 4/46, Vijay Nagar, Delhi;
parentage and Presently at: Village Matan Hill,
residence Jhajjar, Haryana.
(f) Plea of the accused Not guilty
person(s)
(g) Final Order The accused is acquitted of charges
levelled against him
(h) Date of institution 04.08.2023
of case
(i) Date when judgment 03.05.2025
was reserved
(j) Date when judgment 29.05.2025
was pronounced
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION:
1. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution is that on 04.09.2001, on receipt of PCR Call vide DD No. 29A, the concerned police official reached at the spot, i.e., Hansraj College, Delhi University, where it was determined by the concerned police officials that the injured persons were shifted to SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 1 of 41 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.05.29 16:16:43 +0530 Hindu Rao Hospital. Consequently, the concerned police officials are asserted to have reached at the said Hospital and determined the injured/victim namely, Sachin was admitted under MLC No. 6556/2001, besides the accused persons, namely, Manpreet Singh; Naveen; and Ashutosh (hereinafter all the said accused persons along with accused Ram Chander are collectively referred to as the 'accused persons' and the accused Naveen is singularly referred to as the 'accused') were also admitted in the said Hospital vide MLC No. 6558/2001, MLC No. 6559/2001, and MLC No. 6561/2001, respectively. It is further the case of the prosecution that the victim/injured, namely, Sachin was determined to be unfit for statement at the relevant point of time.
However, the statement of one, Amit Kumar Raj ( hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') was recorded.
2. Markedly, under his complaint, the complainant inter alia declared that at that point in time, he was a student at Hansraj College, Delhi University, pursuing his degree in B.A. (Eco) Hons., and residing at room no. 111 in the Hostel of the said college. As per the complainant, on 07.09.2001, election was scheduled at the Delhi University, for which two persons from his/complainant's hostel were contesting for the post of the President (हमारे कॉलेज में दिनांक 07.09.2001 को चुनाव होने जा रहे हैं जिनके लिए हमारे छात्रावास से उम्मीद्वार खड़े हो रहे हैं ). The complainant proclaimed that the said two contestants were Ram Chander and Rajat Singh Rathore and that they/said contestants were making all endeavours to solicit votes of the first year students. Correspondingly, as per the complainant, Ram Chander had threatened the complainant as well as his/complainant's companion, Sachin Saurabh on 04.09.2001 by proclaiming that they should vote for him, else dire consequences would ensue SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 2 of 41 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.05.29 16:16:49 +0530 (रामचन्द्र ने मुझे व मेरे साथी सचिन सौरभ को आज दिन में धमकाया और कहा कि मुझे वोट देना वरना ठीक नहीं होगा). It was further asserted by the complainant that on the said day , i.e., on 04.09.2001 at around 08:45 p.m., Ram Chander called the complainant, Sachin Saurabh and other first year students in his room and threatened to vote for him in the elections, failing which, serious repercussions would ensue. In the meanwhile, they are asserted to have reached at the lawns of the said college, where Ram Chander declared to his associates, namely, Manpreet Singh, Naveen and Ashutosh that Sachin Saurabh should be taught a lesson (राम चंद्र ने अपने साथी मनप्रीत, नवीन सोहाग और आशुतोष से कहा कि ये सचिन सौरभ ज्यादा नेता बनता है। आज इसे मजा चखाते हैं ।). Consequently, it was avowed by the complainant that Ram Chander, while acting in concert as well as collusion with his associates, namely, Manpreet Singh, Naveen and Ashutosh, inflicted deadly injuries on Sachin Saurabh. As per the complainant, in the said process, Ram Chander and Ashutosh inflicted kicks and punch on Sachin Saurabh; Manpreet inflicted blow on the said victim, with the cricket wicket which he was carrying in his hand; while, accused, Naveen inflicted deathly blow/injuries on Sachin Saurabh's head with a wooden plank. In the said process, Sachin Saurabh suffered injuries on his head. Thereupon, the said victim was shifted to the Hospital with the other companions of the complainant. Markedly, as per the MLC of the victim, Sachin Saurabh he is asserted to have inter alia sustained, "...(1) CLW of about 5*3 cm over (L) pinna ear; (2) CLW of about 2*1 cm over (L) Malar bone; (3) CLW of about 5*1 cm over cranial part...", injuries being opined to be grievous.
SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 3 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.05.29 16:16:53 +0530
REGISTRATION OF FIR AND INVESTIGATION:
3. Notably, under the aforenoted facts and circumstances as well as on the basis of the complainant's complaint, the concerned police official prepared tehrir and got the instant FIR registered under Sections 308/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). Thereupon, investigation ensued, whereupon the site plan of the incident spot was prepared and the accused persons were apprehended. Correspondingly, during the investigation process, one paya/leg of wooden chair, asserted to have been deployed by the accused/Naveen was recovered at the instance of the said accused. Concomitantly, the recovered article(s) are asserted to have been deposited in the malkhana.
FILING OF CHARGESHEET AND COMMITTAL:
4. Markedly, upon conclusion of investigation in the instant case, chargesheet was filed by the concerned IO before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate/Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Courts under Sections 308/34 IPC. Subsequently, on 21.03.2002, cognizance of the said offences was taken by the Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Courts. Correspondingly, upon conclusion/compliance of the provisions under Section 207 Cr.P.C., Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Courts vide order dated 21.02.2004, passed an order of committal of the present case before the Ld. Predecessor Judge.
5. Here, it is apposite to note that during the ensuing proceedings before the Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Courts, accused Naveen failed to enter appearance before the concerned Court, leading to issuance of NBWs against the said accused by the Ld. MM, Tis Hazari Courts vide order dated 05.06.2003. Subsequently, since the NBWs, issued against the accused returned unexecuted, Ld. MM was pleased to issue proclamation SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 4 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.05.29 16:16:58 +0530 under Sections 82/83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') against accused Naveen vide order dated 15.09.2003. However, despite issuance of such proclamation, when the accused, namely, Naveen failed to enter appearance before the Ld. MM, the said accused was declared a proclaimed offender by the Ld. MM vide order dated 21.02.2004 inter alia under the following observations;
"...Accused Naveen is absent. Process U/S. 82/83 Cr.P.C. issued against him had been returned back after necessary compliance. Process server HC Surinder Singh is present and his statement has been recorded. In view of his statement and the report on the process, I am of the considered opinion that accused Naveen has been deliberately avoiding the process of the Court. I thus, declare accused Naveen proclaimed offender. His surety has already been discharged..."
(Emphasis supplied) CHARGE FRAMING:
6. Relevantly, after committal of the case by Ld. MM before the Ld. Predecessor Judge, proceedings continued qua accused persons, namely, Ram Chander, Manpreet Singh, and Ashutosh, whereupon charges were framed against the said accused persons on 29.03.2004 and subsequently, on recording of evidence of various prosecution witnesses, Ld. Predecessor Judge vide judgment/order dated 25.05.2004, acquitted the said accused persons, namely, Ram Chander, Manpreet Singh, and Ashutosh against the allegations/charges, levelled against them. Noticeably, it was only on 27.07.2023 that the accused Naveen joined investigation in the instant case, in the meanwhile, having been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 12.06.2023 of Ld. ASJ-02, Tis Hazari Courts, Central. Consequently, upon conclusion of accused, Naveen's interrogation, supplementary chargesheet came to be filed against him (received by way of SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 5 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 16:17:02 +0530 assignment) before this Court on 04.08.2023. Subsequently, arguments on charge were addressed by/on behalf of Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and upon conclusion of the same, vide order dated 19.12.2023, charge(s) under Sections 308/34 IPC were directed to be framed against accused, namely, Naveen. Notably, the relevant extracts of the said order of charge is reproduced as under;
"...1. The arguments of learned counsel for the accused and that of learned Addl. PP for the State, heard as well as record(s)/material placed on record, has been thoroughly perused.
*** *** ***
3. On appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case as well as upon perusal of the materials and documents placed on record, including inter alia the contents of the chargesheet/supplementary chargesheets, statements of witnesses, MLC of victim as well as in light of the settled judicial precedents, prima facie case under Section 308 read with Section 34 IPC stands established against the accused, namely, Naveen. Further, from the perusal of case record, it is revealed that there is strong suspicion and sufficient material/ground(s) to proceed against the said accused. At the same time, there are witness(es) who can depose against the accused. Accordingly, charges under Section 308 read with Section 34 IPC are framed against the accused person, namely, Naveen, to which he has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Relevant to further note that since the accused was declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 21.02.2004, by which time the provisions under Section 174A IPC had not been brought into the statute books, no charge under the said section is being framed against the said accused.
4. List for PE on 28.03.2024..."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. Further, it is apposite to reproduce the charges, as framed by this Court, against the accused Naveen, pursuant to the aforesaid order, as under;
"...I, ***, ASJ-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, do hereby charge you accused, namely, Naveen S/o Sh. Rajpal, R/o. H.No. 4/46, SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 6 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 16:17:06 +0530 Vijay Nagar, Delhi, presently R/o. Village Matan Hail, Jhajjar, Haryana, as follows:
That on 04.0.2001 at about 08:45 p.m. at Hostel Lawn of Hansraj College, Delhi within the jurisdiction of P.S Maurice Nagar, you along with your associates while acting in concert and in furtherance of your common intention, caused injuries on the person of the victim, namely, Sh. Sachin Saurabh, by using wooden stick (kursi ka paaya), with such intention and/or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by the said injuries, you had caused the death of Sh. Sachin Saurabh, you would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and in the said process caused hurt to the victim and thereby, you committed an offence under Section 308 read with Section 34 IPC, within my cognizance.
And, I hereby direct that you be tried by this court for the aforesaid offence..."
(Emphasis supplied)
8. As aforenoted, considering that the provisions under Section 174A IPC were brought under the statute book subsequently, on 23.06.2006. However, accused, Naveen was already declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 21.02.2004 of the Ld. MM, as aforenoted, charges under Section 174A IPC were not framed against the said accused for the offence under Section 174A IPC. Needless to mention that Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Constitution') mandated that no person can be convicted for an offence except for the violation of the law in force at the time of commission of act charged with. As hereinunder observed, in the instant case, offence under Section 174A IPC, was brought into force on 23.06.2006, subsequent to the accused's being declared a proclaimed offender on 21.02.2004. Quite intelligibly, offence under Section 174A IPC, if at all, stood concluded in the instant case, when accused, Naveen failed to appear in the court in response to the proclamation order SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 7 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.05.29 16:17:10 +0530 issued by the Ld. MM under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. Ergo, charging the accused, Naveen, in the instant case, for the said offence would have amounted to according retrospective applicability of the provisions under Section 174A IPC to ex-post facto law, which is impermissible under law/Constitution. Reference in this regard is further made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Ishrat Hussain v. State of Maharashtra, 2013 SCC Online Bom 1462, wherein the Hon'ble Court in an akin situation, remarked as under;
"6. Prosecution of the petitioner with respect to an offence which was not in force at the time when he is alleged to have committed the act/acts constituting the same, is in plain violation of the provisions of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India. Article 20(1) makes it clear that no person shall be convicted of an offence except for the violation of the law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence. Since the act of failing to appear in obedience to the proclamation is alleged to have taken place on or about 13.6.2005, and since this act has been made punishable with effect from 23.6.2006, it was plain that the entire prosecution of the petitioner with respect to the alleged offence was patently illegal and in violation of the Constitutional guarantee afforded by Article 20..."
(Emphasis supplied) PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
9. Notably, during the course of proceedings, prosecution examined 6 (six) witnesses/prosecution witnesses, who deposed in their respective testimonies as under; 9.1. PW-1/Amit Kumar Raj deposed that he/PW-1 was working in an IT company. As per PW-1, in the year 2001, he/PW-1 was studying in first year of B.A. in Hans Raj College, Delhi and was residing in Hostel in Room No. 111 of the said college. It was further proclaimed by PW-1 that in the month of September 2001, elections of Delhi University Student's Union SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 8 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 16:17:15 +0530 were scheduled and the polling date was 07.09.2001. Correspondingly, as per PW-1, there were three candidates from their college for the post of President , i.e., Rajat Singh Rathore, Ram Chander and Prashant Barwala, who were working hard to solicit votes of the students who were studying in first year. PW-1 further deposed that on 04.09.2001, at about 08.15/08.30 p.m., he came out from the Hostel Mess, after having dinner and was accompanied by his batchmates, namely, Aishwarya Singh and Amit Anurag. After coming out of the Hostel Mess, as per PW-1, they heard noise of commotion from the lawns of their Hostel. However, as per PW-1, since it was dark in the lawn, he could not see as to who was causing the said commotion. PW-1 nonetheless, identified the accused, Naveen as one of the students, studying in Hans Raj College at that point in time. Markedly, PW-1 was declared hostile by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and consequently, cross examined. Relevantly, under his cross examination, PW-1 affirmed that the police had met him at the gate of college Hostel and made inquiries from him/PW-1, however, denied that he/PW-1 tendered any statement to the police official. Correspondingly, PW-1, while admitting his signatures on statement Ex. PW1/A at point A, asserted that the said statement was not given by him to the police officials. On the contrary, as per PW-1, the police officials had obtained his signatures on blank paper. Concomitantly, PW-1 denied the suggestion that he was coerced or pressurised to vote for a particular person by Ram Chander and even denied the suggestion that Ram Chander threatened him that in case he stood elected, he would beat PW-1, while celebrating his victory, besides even in his/Ram Chander's defeat, he would beat PW-1 to mourn his defeat. PW-1 further denied the suggestion that SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 9 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.05.29 16:17:19 +0530 accused persons Manpreet, Naveen Suhag and Ashutosh were present with Ram Chander at that time and even denied that he/PW-1 heard Ram Chander say to his said associates that Sachin Saurabh portrays as a leader ( Sachin Saurabh jyada Neta banta hai) and even denied that he/Ram Chander proclaimed they would teach him/Sachin Saurabh a lesson. Further, under his cross examination, PW-1 further denied that Ram Chander, Manpreet, Ashutosh and accused Naveen Suhag, in furtherance of their common intention, gave beatings to Sachin Saurabh and Ram Chander; Ashutosh kicked and punched Sachin Saurabh; while Manpreet hit Sachin Saurabh with a cricket wicket; and accused Naveen Suhag hit Sachin Saurabh with a wooden paya of chair on his/Sachin Saurabh's head, to kill him due to which Sachin Saurabh sustained head injuries. PW-1 further inter alia denied having made any supplementary statement dated 05.09.2001 to the police official(s). 9.2. PW-2/Sachin Saurabh deposed that in the year 2001, he/PW-2 was a student of first year of Physics Honors in Hans Raj College, University of Delhi and, was residing in hostel of Hans Raj College in Room No. 111. As per PW-2, PW-1/Amit Kumar Raj was his roommate and in the month of September, 2001, elections of Delhi University Student's Union were scheduled. It was further proclaimed by PW-2 that there were three candidates from their college for the post of President and their names were; Rajat Singh Rathore, Ram Chander and Prashant Barwala. Correspondingly, as per PW-2, on 04.09.2001, at about 08.30 p.m., he/PW-2 along with his friends took dinner in the hostel mess and thereafter, they came out from there. As per PW-2, after coming out of the hostel mess, they saw that there was a crowd of students and a commotion was going on in SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 10 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.05.29 16:17:23 +0530 the lawn of their Hostel. Further, it was proclaimed by PW-2 that it was dark in the lawn and he was unable to see as to who was causing commotion. Thereafter, as per PW-2, the persons present in the crowd assaulted him/PW-2 and he became unconscious.
PW-2 further asserted that he regained consciousness in Hospital. Markedly, as per PW-2, he was not in a position to identify the persons who had assaulted him/PW-2 as it was dark at that time and he could not see the assailants. In fact, PW-2 even asserted that he did not know accused Naveen, upon his attention being drawn to the said accused in Court. Consequently, in view of the said deposition, PW-2 was declared hostile by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and cross examined. Markedly, upon being so cross examined, PW-2 inter alia denied that the police made any inquiry from him, regarding the incident of commotion, besides PW-2 also denied having tendered any statement dated 06.09.2001 to the police officials, in terms of the provisions under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Mark PW2/1). Correspondingly, PW-2 denied the suggestion that on 04.09.2001, Ram Chander threatened him and his friend Amit Kumar, pressurising them to vote for him. Concomitantly, PW-2 denied that on the said date , i.e., on 04.09.2001, at about 08.45 p.m., Ram Chander called him/PW-2, Amit Raj/PW-1 and their friends of first year to him room and threatened them that in case he stood elected, he would beat them, while celebrating his victory or in the alternate, in case he/Ram Chander was defeated in the elections, he would beat them to mourn his defeat. PW-2 further denied that accused persons, Manpreet, Naveen Suhag and Ashutosh were present with Ram Chander at that time and further denied that he/PW-2 heard Ram Chander say to his said associates that Sachin Saurabh/PW-2 poses/portrayed as a great leader ( Sachin Saurabh SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 11 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 16:17:27 +0530 jyada Neta banta hai) and that they would teach him a lesson that day. Significantly, PW-2 also denied that Ram Chander, Manpreet, Ashutosh and accused Naveen Suhag, in furtherance of their common intention gave beatings to him/PW-2 and further denied that Ram Chander and Ashutosh kicked and punched him/PW-2; while Manpreet hit him/PW-2 with a cricket wicket; and accused Naveen Suhag hit him/PW-2 with a wooden paya of chair on his/PW-2's head to kill him. PW-2 also denied that due to the said blows, he/PW-2 sustained head injuries and became unconscious.
9.3. PW-3/SI Krishan Kumar deposed that on 04.09.2001, he/PW-3 was posted as HC at PS Maurice Nagar and was working as duty officer from 04:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight.
Further, as per PW-3, on that day, at about 11:40 p.m., on receipt of rukka from Ct. Latoor, he/PW-3 registered FIR No. 117/2001, instant FIR. PW-3 further proved the carbon copy of said FIR as Ex. PW3/A, bearing his/PW-3's signatures at point A. PW-3 further proclaimed that he made his endorsement Ex. PW3/B on the rukka, bearing his/PW-3's signatures at point A. Correspondingly, as per PW-3, after registration of FIR, copy of FIR and original rukka were handed over to Ct. Latoor for being delivered to IO ASI Ved Pal.
9.4. PW-4/(Retd.) Ct. Latoor Singh deposed that on 04.09.2001, he was posted as Constable at PS. Maurice Nagar and on the said day, ASI Ved Pal received a call. Consequently, as per PW-4, he along with IO Ved Pal went to Hans Raj College. As per PW-4, at Hansraj College Naveen, Manpreet and one other person had scuffled and they were taken to Hindu Rao Hospital for their medical examination. PW-4 further deposed that after such medical examination was conducted, he returned SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 12 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 16:17:32 +0530 to the spot of occurrence, where scuffle had happened. Thereafter, PW-4 proclaimed that the IO handed over tehrir to him and he took the same to the DO, for registration of FIR. PW-4, however, expressed his inability to depose as to who the said FIR was handed over by the DO. It was further proclaimed by PW-4 that subsequently, jamatalashi/personal search of Naveen, Manpreet and the said third person was conducted and in the said process, one wooden planlk (cricket wala danda), I- Card and Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) were found. PW-4 further correctly identified accused Naveen in Court. PW-4, upon being cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, deposed that on 04.09.2001, the duty officer handed over copy of DD No. 31A to him/PW-4 and sent him/PW-4 to Hans Raj Hostel. However, PW-4 denied ability to recollect that when he went to Hans Raj Hostel, he/PW-4 came to know that IO/ASI Ved Pal along with Ct. Subhash had gone to Hindu Rao Hospital or not. PW-4 affirmed under his cross-examination that he/PW-4 had gone to Hindu Rao Hospital and handed over the copy of DD No. 31A to the IO and that the IO collected the MLCs of all the four injured persons. PW-4 further affirmed that the Doctor had declared three injured persons fit for statement and one injured as unfit for statement. Correspondingly, PW-4 confirmed that the Doctor had discharged the injured Ashutosh, Naveen and Manpreet. Notably, PW-4 declared that he did not know whether one person, namely, Amit Kumar, met the IO at the spot and IO recorded his statement as well as PW-4 further denied that Amit had stated that Naveen, Ashutosh, Ram Chander and Manpreet had caused injury to Amit Kumar and Sachin. PW-4 further denied having given statement to the said effect to the IO. However, PW-4 proved the arrest memos of Ashutosh, Manpreet, SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 13 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.05.29 16:17:37 +0530 Naveen and Ram Chander as Ex. PW4/A, Ex. PW4/B, Ex. PW4/C and Ex. PW4/D, respectively, all bearing PW-4's signature at point A. PW-4 further proved the personal search memos of Naveen, Ashutosh and Manpreet as Ex. PW4/E, Ex. PW4/F and Ex. PW4/G, respectively, all bearing his/PW-4's signature at point A. PW-4 further affirmed that the said persons, including accused, Naveen, were arrested and their personal search was carried out in his presence. PW-4 further affirmed that Manpreet got recovered one wicket of cricket and the accused Naveen got recovered one paya of wooden chair from lawn of Hans Raj College and that the same were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/H, bearing my signature at point A. However, during the course of deposition of PW-4, MHC(M) produced RC No. 44/21 (Mark PW4/X-1) and submitted that the case property of the present case had already been deposited with District Nazir on 31.01.2005 and that the same was not in the position to be produced.
9.5. PW-5/(Retd.) SI Vedpal deposed that on 04.09.2001, he/PW-5 was posted as ASI at PS Maurice Nagar and on that night, he/PW-5 received DD No. 29 regarding quarrel at Hans Raj College. Consequently, as per PW-5, he along with SI Pradeep Kumar, Ct. Kanhaiya Lal, Ct. Subhash and Ct.
Devender went to Hansraj College and he/PW-5 left SI Pradeep, Ct. Kanhaiya Lal and Ct. Devender at spot. Further, as per PW-5, he/PW-5 along with Ct. Subhash went to Hindu Rao Hospital, where Ct. Latoor Singh met them and gave PW-5, a copy of DD No. 31A. Further, as per PW-5, the injured Sachin was under
treatment vide MLC No. 6556 and he/Sachin was declared unfit for statement. It was further proclaimed by PW-5 that there were other injured persons, namely, Manpreet, Naveen and Ashutosh SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 14 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.05.29 16:17:41 +0530 in Hindu Rao Hospital and they were discharged from the Hospital. PW-5 further deposed that one eyewitness, namely, Amit Kumar Raj met him/PW-5 in Hindu Rao Hospital and he/PW-5 recorded the statement of Amit Kumar Raj as well as prepared tehrir (Ex. PW5/A), bearing PW-5's signatures at point A. Thereafter, as per PW-5, he handed over the tehrir to Ct. Latoor Singh and sent him to PS Maurice Nagar for the registration of FIR. Further, as per PW-5, he along with Ct. Subhash, Amit Raj, Manpreet, Naveen and Ashutosh went to the spot at Hansraj College and he/PW-5 prepared a site plan ( Ex. PW5/B) at the said spot, at the instance of Amit Raj, bearing PW-5's signatures at point A. PW-5 further deposed that he recorded supplementary statement of Amit Raj as well as interrogated the accused persons, namely, Manpreet, Naveen and Ashutosh and arrested them vide arrest memos Ex. PW4/A, Ex. PW4/B and Ex. PW4/C, all bearing PW-5's signatures at point B. PW-5 further asserted that he carried out the personal search of the accused persons vide memos Ex. PW4/E, Ex. PW4/F and Ex. PW4/G, all bearing PW-5's signatures at point B. It was further proclaimed by PW-5 that accused Manpreet got recovered one cricket wicket and the accused Naveen got recovered one paya/leg of wooden chair from the lawn near wall of Hansraj college, which was seized by PW-5 vide seizure memo (Ex. PW4/H), bearing PW-5's signature at point B. PW-5 further asserted that he arrested accused Ram Chander in the morning hours of 05.09.2001 vide arrest memo (Ex. PW4/D), bearing PW-5's signature at point B. It was further deposed by PW-5 that he deposited the case property in malkhana and produced the accused persons before the Court on 05.09.2001, whereupon the said accused persons were sent to judicial custody.
SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 15 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.05.29 16:17:46 +0530
Correspondingly, as per PW-5, on 06.09.2001, injured Sachin was discharged from the Hospital and he/PW-5 recorded Sachin's statement. Further, as per PW-5, he obtained final result of the nature of injury on MLC of Sachin as well as, recorded the statements of other witnesses, namely, Rajat Singh Rathore, during investigation. Further, as per PW-5, after completion of investigation, he prepared the chargesheet and filed the same before Court. PW-5 further correctly identified accused Naveen in Court.
9.6. PW-6/ Rajat Singh Rathore deposed that in the year 2001, he/PW-6 was a Graduate student in Hansraj College, Delhi and, residing in Hansraj College Hostel. PW-6 further asserted that though he could not recollect the exact date, however, it was in the month of September 2001, election of their College Students' Union were going to be held. Further, as per PW-6, on the eve of election day, he had gone to the lawns of Hansraj College and found that one student namely, Sachin Saurabh was lying in injured condition. However, PW-6 expressed inability to depose as to how the said person had sustained injuries as well as asserted that he did not know of Sachin Saurabh's assailants.
PW-6 further proclaimed that he took the injured, namely, Sachin Saurabh to Hindu Rao Hospital and thereafter, police conducted investigation in the present case. Relevantly, upon being cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW-6 affirmed that he knew accused, Naveen as well as Ram Chander, Manpreet and Ashutosh as they were also students of Hansraj College. PW-6 further affirmed that Ram Chander was contesting the election and he was campaigning hard to get the votes of students of first year. However, PW-6 denied the suggestion that on 04.09.2001, in his/PW-6's presence, Ram Chander threatened Mr. Amit SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 16 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 16:17:50 +0530 Kumar Raj and Sachin Saurabh by saying, " aap mere paksh me vote dena", as well as denied that he had informed about the same to the police officials. PW-6 further denied the suggestion that in evening hours on the same day, in his/PW-6's presence Ram Chander called Sachin Saurabh, Amit Kumar and other students of first year to his room in Hostel and threatened to cast votes in his favour otherwise he would kill/beat them, which was objected by Sachin Saurabh. Correspondingly, PW-6 denied that in his/PW-6's presence, the said persons came to the lawn of Hansraj College and at about 08.45 p.m., Ram Chander told his associates Manpreet, Ashutosh and accused Naveen, " yeh Sachin Saurabh neta banta hai aaj isko majaa chakhate hain" and even denied of making such statement to the police. PW-6 further denied the suggestion that in his presence, Ram Chander and Ashutosh gave beatings to Sachin with legs and fists; Manpreet hit Sachin Saurabh with cricket wicket; and accused Naveen hit Sachin Saurabh with a chair leg (kursi ka paya) to kill him. PW-6 further denied of having made any such statement to the police. PW-6 further denied that the incident of causing injury to Sachin Saurabh took place in his/PW-6's presence and even denied that the accused Naveen along with Ram Chander, Ashutosh and Manpreet caused injuries to Sachin Saurabh in his/PW-6's presence.
9.7. Notably, all the aforenoted prosecution witnesses were thoroughly examined by/on behalf of the accused, Naveen, by his Ld. Counsel. Correspondingly, the accused, on 18.10.2024, admitted MLC No. 6556/2001, dated 04.09.2001 of Sachin S/o. Mr. Surya and the nature of injury given in the said MLC as Ex. A-1, in terms of the provisions under Section 294 Cr.P.C./Section 330 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 17 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.05.29 16:17:54 +0530 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS'), leading to this Court's dispensing with the formal proof of the said document as well as of, correspondingly, dropping/discharging of Dr. Saroj Kumar and Dr. R.N. Sahar from the list of prosecution witnesses. EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED:
10. Apposite to note here that upon conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused, in terms of the provisions under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded, wherein the accused Naveen denied his involvement in the present case and proclaimed that he has been falsely implicated in the present proceedings/case. Correspondingly, the accused denied being present at the spot at the relevant point in time or of awareness of the incident in question. Further, as per the accused, the recovered wooden plank was falsely planted on him and that the proceedings in the instant case were conducted in the police station. Notably, the relevant extracts from accused, Naveen's statement, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., are reproduced as under;
"...Q. 1: Whereas it has come in evidence against you that PW-1/Amit Kumar Raj deposed that in the year 2001, he/PW-1 was studying in the first year of BA in Hans Raj College, Delhi and, residing in Hostel in Room No. 111 of Hans Raj College, Delhi. It is further in evidence that as per PW-1, in the month of September, 2001, elections of Delhi University Student's Union were scheduled and polling date was 07.09.2001. As per PW-1, there were three candidates from his college for the post of President and their names were Rajat Singh Rathore, Ram Chander and Prashant Barwala. It is further in evidence that as per PW-1, the aforesaid candidates were working hard to solicit votes of the students who were studying in first year. What do you have to say?
Answer: It is correct that Student Union Elections were scheduled and polling date was 07.09.2001. It is further correct that the above said three persons were contesting for the post of President and rest of the SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 18 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 16:17:59 +0530 contents are not in my knowledge.
*** *** *** Q. 3: Whereas it has come in evidence against you that PW-1/Amit Kumar Raj deposed in his cross examination by/at the behest of Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the police had met him/PW-1 at the gate of college hostel and made inquiry from him/PW-1. However, PW-1 while, affirming his signatures on statement dated 04.09.2001 (Ex. PW1/A), stated that the police obtained his signatures on some blank papers, however, the police did not record his/PW-1's statement. What do you have to say? Answer: I do not know as there is no proceedings took placed in front of me.
*** *** *** Q. 10: Whereas it has come in evidence against you that PW-4/Ct. (retd.) Latoor Singh deposed, "jamatalashi me Naveen ke pas se cricket wala danda, I-Card aur Rs.1000/- nikle the." PW-4 further correctly identified you/accused Naveen in Court. What do you have to say?
Answer: It is incorrect. The cricket wala danda was falsely planted upon me by the concerned IO.
*** *** *** Q. 12: Whereas it has come in evidence against you that PW-4/Ct. (retd.) Latoor Singh affirmed as correct that the arrest memo of Ashutosh, Manpreet, you/accused Naveen and Ram Chander are Ex. PW4/A, Ex. PW4/B, Ex. PW4/C and Ex. PW4/D, all bear PW-4's signature at point A and the personal search memos of you/accused Naveen, Ashutosh and Manpreet are Ex. PW4/E, Ex. PW4/F and Ex. PW4/G, all bear PW-4's signature at point A. What do you have to say?
Answer: The IO of the case falsely implicated me in this case and the proceedings of arrest were conducted in the police station.
*** *** *** Q. 23: Why was this case registered against you? Answer: I was falsely implicated in this case. Q. 24: Do you want to say anything else? Answer: I have been falsely implicated in the present case. I was not present at the spot at the time of incident.
Q. 25: Do you want to lead evidence in defence? Answer: No..."
(Emphasis supplied) SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 19 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.05.29 16:18:04 +0530 10.1. As aforenoted, accused Naveen, in his statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. asserted/professed that he did not desire to lead any evidence in his support. Consequently, the matter was listed for arguments.
CONTENTIONS OF STATE:
11. Learned Addl. PP for the State outrightly submitted that from the material placed on record and, in particular, from the conjoint reading of the testimonies of various prosecution witnesses, the role, complicity as well as active involvement of the accused in the commission of the offences alleged against him stands proved. As per the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the accused was apprehended forthwith on the commission of incident, as well as recovery of the weapon used for the commission of offence was recovered at the instance of the accused. Correspondingly, it was submitted by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the testimony of hostile witness cannot be discarded in its entirety. On the contrary, Ld. Addl. PP for the State asserted that the law is settled that the testimony of a hostile witness cannot be discarded in its entirely, rather, relevant and admissible parts thereof can be used by either the prosecution or the defense and a conviction can be based on such testimony, if corroborated by other evidence. Further, as per the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the accused persons, despite being afforded an opportunity to lead evidence, deliberately opted not to lead any defence witnesses to belie the case of prosecution. Accordingly, Ld. Addl. PP for the State reiterated that from the material, evidence and documents, placed on record the charges levelled against the accused stand duly proved, making him liable for the offences/charges levelled against the said accused.
SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 20 of 41 Digitally signed byABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.05.29 16:18:09 +0530 CONTENTIONS OF DEFENCE:
12. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the accused outrightly submitted that from the material placed on record, the ingredients of offence under Sections 308/34 IPC are not made out in the instant case. In this regard, Ld. Counsel vehemently asserted that the prime prosecution witnesses/PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 have not supported the case of the prosecution, besides the said witnesses have even failed to attribute any role to the accused. Ld. Counsel further submitted that a scrupulous analysis of the material placed on record would demonstrate, various omissions, and lacunae in the material brought forth on record, belying the allegations against the accused. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing submissions, Ld. Counsel submitted that the accused be permitted to benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
APPEARANCE:
13. The arguments of Ld. Addl. PP for the State and that of Ld. Counsel for the accused have been heard as well as the record(s), including the testimonies of various witnesses, document(s)/material/evidence placed on record (oral and documentary evidence), thoroughly perused. LEGAL PROVISIONS:
14. Before proceeding with the determination of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court deems it prudent to reproduce the relevant provisions under law/IPC as under;
"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.
*** *** ***
308. Attempt to commit culpable homicide-
SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 21 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.05.29 16:18:14 +0530
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 culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
(Emphasis supplied)
15. Notably, from a perusal of the above, it is outrightly observed that the provisions under Section 34 IPC recognize the principle of vicarious liability1 in criminal jurisprudence, attracting culpability against a person for an act/offence, not committed by him but by another person with whom he shared the common intention. It is trite law2 that Section 34 IPC does not provide for a substantive offence, rather, envisions culpability on the part of an accused only upon the proof of two conditions , i.e., "the mental element or the intention to commit the criminal act conjointly with another or others; and the other is the actual participation in one form or the other in the commission of the crime." Quite evidently3, mere common intention on the part of any such accused, per se may not attract the provisions under Section 34 IPC, sans an action in furtherance thereof. However, law is trite that for common intention to develop, it is not necessary that there must be a prior conspiracy or premeditated mind. On the contrary, such common intention can be formed even in the course of the incident, i.e., during the occurrence of the crime. Strikingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Naresh v. State of U.P., (2024) 1 SCC 443 , while explicating the 1 Suresh v. State of U.P., (2001) 3 SCC 673.
2Virendra Singh v. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 407.
3Jasdeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2022) 2 SCC 545.
SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 22 of 41 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.05.29 16:18:17 +0530
contours of the provisions under Section 34 IPC inter alia remarked as under;
"7. A reading of Section 34 IPC reveals that when a criminal act is done by several persons with a common intention each of the person is liable for that act as it has been done by him alone. Therefore, where participation of the accused in a crime is proved and the common intention is also established, Section 34IPC would come into play. To attract Section 34IPC, it is not necessary that there must be a prior conspiracy or premeditated mind. The common intention can be formed even in the course of the incident i.e. during the occurrence of the crime.
*** *** ***
11. Assistance has been taken of para 26 of the decision of this Court in Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka [Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka, (2022) 7 SCC 521: (2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 192], which is reproduced herein below: (SCC p. 537) "26. Section 34 IPC makes a co-perpetrator, who had participated in the offence, equally liable on the principle of joint liability. For Section 34 to apply there should be common intention between the co-perpetrators, which means that there should be community of purpose and common design or prearranged plan. However, this does not mean that co-perpetrators should have engaged in any discussion, agreement or valuation. For Section 34 to apply, it is not necessary that the plan should be prearranged or hatched for a considerable time before the criminal act is performed. Common intention can be formed just a minute before the actual act happens. Common intention is necessarily a psychological fact as it requires prior meeting of minds. In such cases, direct evidence normally will not be available and in most cases, whether or not there exists a common intention has to be determined by drawing inference from the facts proved. This requires an inquiry into the antecedents, conduct of the co-participants or perpetrators at the time and after the occurrence.
The manner in which the accused arrived, mounted the attack, nature and type of injuries inflicted, the weapon used, conduct or acts of the co-assailants/perpetrators, object and purpose behind the occurrence or the attack, etc. are all relevant facts from which inference has to be drawn to arrive at a conclusion whether or not the SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 23 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 16:18:22 +0530 ingredients of Section 34IPC are satisfied. We must remember that Section 34IPC comes into operation against the co-perpetrators because they have not committed the principal or main act, which is undertaken/performed or is attributed to the main culprit or perpetrator. Where an accused is the main or final perpetrator, resort to Section 34IPC is not necessary as the said perpetrator is himself individually liable for having caused the injury/offence. A person is liable for his own acts. Section 34 or the principle of common intention is invoked to implicate and fasten joint liability on other co-participants."
12. A plain reading of the above paragraph of Krishnamurthy case [Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka, (2022) 7 SCC 521: (2022) 3 SCC (Cri) 192] reveals that for applying Section 34IPC there should be a common intention of all the co-accused persons which means community of purpose and common design. Common intention does not mean that the co-accused persons should have engaged in any discussion or agreement so as to prepare a plan or hatch a conspiracy for committing the offence.
Common intention is a psychological fact and it can be formed a minute before the actual happening of the incidence or as stated earlier even during the occurrence of the incidence."
(Emphasis supplied)
16. Markedly, from the above, it is noted that in the instances where the provisions under Section 34 IPC are proposed to be invoked by the prosecution against accused persons, it is not mandatory to demonstrate that there such persons engaged in any prior discussion or agreement so as to prepare a plan or hatch a conspiracy for committing the offence. On the contrary, common intention may be formed at a spur of moment, even during the commission/occurrence of incident, which is to be discernible from the facts of circumstances of each case. Correspondingly, it is also a settled law that for proving formation of common intention by accused persons, direct evidence may seldomly be available, yet, in order to attract the provisions under Section 34 IPC, prosecution is under a bounden SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 24 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.05.29 16:18:26 +0530 duty to prove that the participants had shared a common intention4. Reference, in regard the foregoing is further made to the decision in Virendra Singh v. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 407, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, elucidated as under;
"38. The vicarious or constructive liability under Section 34 IPC can arise only when two conditions stand fulfilled i.e. the mental element or the intention to commit the criminal act conjointly with another or others; and the other is the actual participation in one form or the other in the commission of the crime.
39. The common intention postulates the existence of a prearranged plan implying a prior meeting of the minds. It is the intention to commit the crime and the accused can be convicted only if such an intention has been shared by all the accused. Such a common intention should be anterior in point of time to the commission of the crime, but may also develop on the spot when such a crime is committed . In most of the cases it is difficult to procure direct evidence of such intention. In most of the cases, it can be inferred from the acts or conduct of the accused and other relevant circumstances. Therefore, in inferring the common intention under Section 34 IPC, the evidence and documents on record acquire a great significance and they have to be very carefully scrutinised by the court. This is particularly important in cases where evidence regarding development of the common intention to commit the offence graver than the one originally designed, during execution of the original plan, should be clear and cogent.
40. The dominant feature of Section 34 is the element of intention and participation in action. This participation need not in all cases be by physical presence. Common intention implies acting in concert.
*** *** ***
42. Section 34 IPC does not create any distinct offence, but it lays down the principle of constructive liability. Section 34 IPC stipulates that the act must have been done in furtherance of the common intention. In order to incur joint liability for an offence there must be a prearranged and 4 Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Khalid B.A. v. State of Kerala, 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 11875, in this regard, remarked; "72. It is settled law that the common intention or the intention of the individual concerned in furtherance of the common intention could be proved either from direct evidence or by inference from the acts or attending circumstances of the case and conduct of the parties. Direct proof of common intention is seldom available and, therefore, such intention can only be inferred from the circumstances appearing from the proved facts of the case and the proved circumstances." (Emphasis supplied) SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 25 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.05.29 16:18:31 +0530 premeditated concert between the accused persons for doing the act actually done, though there might not be long interval between the act and the premeditation and though the plan may be formed suddenly. In order that Section 34 IPC may apply, it is not necessary that the prosecution must prove that the act was done by a particular or a specified person. In fact, the section is intended to cover a case where a number of persons act together and on the facts of the case it is not possible for the prosecution to prove as to which of the persons who acted together actually committed the crime. Little or no distinction exists between a charge for an offence under a particular section and a charge under that section read with Section 34."
(Emphasis supplied)
17. In so far as accountability under Section 308 IPC is concerned, it is imperative for the prosecution to prove 5 that the accused, "had requisite intention or knowledge to cause culpable homicide. It is crucial to determine whether the accused had intention or knowledge that the injuries inflicted on the victim would cause the death and as a result thereof the accused could be guilty of committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder...". Reference in this regard is further made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. v. State, Crl. Rev. P. 159/2021 & Crl. M.A. 5194/2021, dated 14.03.2023, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while explicating the ingredients of the offence under Section 308 IPC, remarked as under;
"6. Coming to Section 308 IPC, this Court in Shiv Singh v. State, 1983 SCC OnLine Del 163 which was followed in Brahm Dutt's case (supra) held that in order to constitute an offence under Section 308 "it must be proved (1) that the accused committed an act, (2) that the said act was committed with the intention or knowledge to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder and (3) the act was committed under such circumstances if the accused by that act had caused death he would have 5 Salman v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1247.
SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 26 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.05.29 16:18:36 +0530
been guilty of culpable homicide." It was further ruled that intention is a question of fact which is gathered from the acts committed by the accused and knowledge means awareness of the consequences of the act. This has also been followed by this Court in Ved Kumari v. State, 2002 SCC OnLine Del 168 in setting aside summons issued under Section 308 IPC..."
(Emphasis supplied)
18. Correspondingly, in respect of the foregoing, reference is further made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Mohan Rathor v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1986 SCC OnLine MP 113: Crl. Rev.P. 34/2015 & Crl. M.A. 768/2015, dated 17.09.2015 wherein the Hon'ble Court, while inter alia distinguishing between the provisions under Section 307 IPC and Section 308 IPC as well as of the manner of determination of mens rea of an accused, noted as under;
"5. It has to be examined whether this act committed by the appellant comes within the scope and orbit of S. 307 or S. 308 of the Penal Code. If an accused 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, he shall be guilty of committing an offence punishable under S. 307, but if an accused did any act that he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, he shall be guilty of committing an act punishable under S. 308 of the Penal Code. Culpable homicide does not amount to murder (a) if the act is done with the intention or knowledge referred to in S. 300 of the Penal Code but under circumstances which would bring the case within one of the Exceptions mentioned in that section or (b) if the act is done with the intention or knowledge referred to in S. 299 but not falling under clauses (2), (3) and (4) of S. 300 of the Penal Code. Thus, if an accused does not intend to cause death or any bodily injury, which he knows to be likely to cause death or even to cause such bodily injury as is sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death, S. 308 of the Penal Code would apply even if the case is not covered by any of the exceptions mentioned in S. 300 of the Penal Code.
6. But before an act can be said to have been committed under S. 308 of the Penal Code, it is SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 27 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 16:18:40 +0530 essential to examine the mens rea of the appellant at the time of the incident, because mens rea is one of the two essential elements of the offence of an attempt of murder. To constitute an offence of attempt to murder, there must be an act coupled with mens rea. What inspired the appellant to commit the alleged crime? Had he intention to kill? Intention has been defined to consist of a desire that certain consequence shall follow from, the act or omission of the accused. If there is no such intention or knowledge, as is necessary to constitute murder? there can be no attempt to commit it. The intention may be proved by res gestae, by acts or events, previous or subsequent to the incident or occurrence. Various relevant circumstances from which the intention may be gathered are: nature of the weapon used, part of the body where injury was caused, nature of injury and opportunity available to accused...."
(Emphasis supplied)
19. Germane for the purpose(s) of the present discourse to make a reference to the decision in Rajiv Sharma v. State, 2015 SCC OnLine Del. 12138, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi explicitly noted that the nature of injury of the victim is not the determining test for the offence under Section 308 IPC. On the contrary, it has to be seen, whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if one by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Pertinently, the relevant extract from the said dictate is as under;
"4. To proceed under Section 308 IPC, it is not essential that the injury actually caused to the victim should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if one by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. If an accused does not intend to cause death or any bodily injury, which he knows to be likely to cause death or even to cause such bodily injury as is sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, Section 308 SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 28 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.05.29 16:18:44 +0530 IPC would not apply. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether the accused had the intention to cause death or knew in the circumstances that his act was going to cause death. The nature of weapon used, the intention expressed by the accused at the time of the act, the motive of commission of offence, the nature and size of the injuries, the parts of the body of the victim selected for causing injuries, severity of the blow or blows and the conduct of the accused are important factors which may be taken into consideration in coming to a finding whether in a particular case, the accused can be proceeded under Section 308 IPC..."
(Emphasis supplied)
20. Congruently, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Chuni Lal v. State of Delhi, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 3074 , remarked that where direct evidence is available, mere non- recovery of weapon would not be of much consequence. In this regard, the Hon'ble Court, remarked as under;
"18. As regards the submission that the weapon of offence has not been recovered, record reveals that accused Chuni Lal was arrested on 11 th May 1996 and as per his disclosure statement, he had thrown away the weapon of offence in a running tempo. Nihal Singh was evading arrest and, as such, was declared proclaimed offender. He could be arrested only on 3rd November, 1997. As such, after a lapse of such considerable period, there was hardly any possibility of recovery of weapon of offence at his instance. Moreover, mere non-recovery of weapon of offence is not a factor from which the appellants can get any benefit. In Mohinder v. State, 2010 VII AD (Delhi) 645, it was held that non-recovery of weapon of offence during investigation is not such an important factor to neutralise the direct evidence of complicity of accused in the murder of deceased..."
(Emphasis supplied) APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
21. Therefore, being wary of the aforenoted legal principles, judicial dictates and the rival contentions of the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as that of Ld. Counsel for the accused, this Court would now proceed with the determination SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 29 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 16:18:49 +0530 on merits of the instant case. In particular, and outrightly to the effect as to, 'whether from the material placed on record, culpability under the provisions of law, i.e., Section(s) 308/34 IPC can be attracted against the accused namely, Naveen? '. Conspicuously, in order to deal with the said aspect, this Court deems it apt to incipiently note that the case of prosecution primarily hinges on the versions/depositions of the victim/PW-2/Sachin Saurabh as well as that of the complainant/PW-1/Amit Kumar Raj and PW-6/ Rajat Singh Rathore. However, as aforenoted, PW-2 deposed that on 04.09.2001, at about 08.30 p.m., he/PW-2 along with his friends took dinner in the hostel mess and thereafter, they came out from there. As per PW-2, after coming out of the hostel mess, they saw that there was a crowd of students and a commotion was going on in the lawn of their Hostel. Further, it was proclaimed by PW-2 that it was dark in the lawn and he was unable to see as to who was causing commotion. Thereafter, as per PW-2, the persons present in the crowd assaulted him/PW-2 and he became unconscious. PW-2 further asserted that he regained consciousness in Hospital. Markedly, as per PW-2, he was not in a position to identify the persons who had assaulted him/PW-2 as it was dark at that time and he could not see the assailants.
Needless to reiterate that despite being rigorously cross examined by/on behalf of the State, PW-2 failed to disclose anything incriminating against the accused herein. In fact, PW-2 even went on to inter alia deny the suggestion that the accused Naveen Suhag hit him/PW-2 with a wooden paya of chair on his/PW-2's head to kill him. Correspondingly, though, PW-1/complainant/Amit Kumar Raj affirmed that on 04.09.2001, at about 08.15/08.30 p.m., when he came out from the Hostel SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 30 of 41 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.05.29 16:18:54 +0530 Mess, after having dinner and was accompanied by his batchmates, namely, Aishwarya Singh and Amit Anurag, they heard noise of commotion from the lawns of their Hostel. However, as per PW-1, since it was dark in the lawn, he could not see as to who was causing the said commotion. Further, as aforementioned, PW-1 was also declared hostile by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and cross examined.
22. Markedly, upon being so cross examined by/on behalf of the State, PW-1/Amit Kumar Raj proclaimed as under;
"XXXXXX by Sh. ***, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
It is correct that police had met me at the gate of college hostel and made inquiry from me. It is wrong to suggest that police recorded my statement. (Vol. They obtained my signatures on some blank papers). It is correct that the statement dated 04.09.2001 bears my signatures at point A. (Vol. Police obtained my signatures on blank paper). It is wrong to suggest that I gave the said statement to police on my own and I signed the same after the same was read over to me. Statement is Ex. PW1/A. It is wrong to suggest that when we heard noise of commotion, I was pressurized or forced to vote for particular person. It is wrong to suggest that Ram Chander came to me at that time and he had pressurized me to vote for him. (witness is confronted with portion X to X-1 of the statement Ex. PW1/A where it is so recorded). It is wrong to suggest that Ram Chander threatened me that in case he stands elected, he will beat me while celebrating his victory and in case he is defeated he will beat me to mourn his defeat. (witness is confronted with portion X-2 to X-3 of the statement Ex. PW1/A where it is so recorded). It is wrong to suggest that Manpreet, Naveen Suhag and Ashutosh were present with Ram Chander at that time and I heard Ram Chander saying to his aforesaid associates that Sachin Saurabh poses to be a great leader (Sachin Saurabh jyada Neta banta hai) and they will teach him a lesson that day. (witness is confronted with portion X-4 to X-5 of the statement Ex. PW1/A where it is so recorded). It is correct that I know Manpreet, Ram Chander and Ashutosh as they were hoteliers of Hans Raj College in year 2001. It is SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 31 of 41 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.05.29 16:18:59 +0530 wrong to suggest that Ram Chander, Manpreet, Ashutosh and accused Naveen Suhag in furtherance of their common intention gave beatings to Sachin Saurabh and Ram Chander and Ashutosh kicked and punched Sachin Saurabh while Manpreet hit Sachin Saurabh with a cricket wicket and accused Naveen Suhag hit Sachin Saurabh with a wooden paya of chair on head of Sachin Saurabh to kill him due to which Sachin Saurabh sustained head injuries. (witness is confronted with portion X-6 to X-7 of the statement Ex. PW1/A where it is so recorded). It is wrong to suggest that I stated to the IO that all the aforesaid four persons attacked and injured Sachin Saurabh to kill him. (witness is confronted with portion X-8 to X-9 of the statement Ex. PW1/A where it is so recorded).
At this stage, attention of witness is drawn towards his supplementary statement dated 05.09.2001 to which witness stated that he had not given any such statement. The said statement is marked as Mark PW1/1. It is wrong to suggest that police prepared site plan at my instance (witness is confronted with portion X to X-1 of the statement Mark PW1/1 where it is so recorded). It is wrong to suggest that I have deposed falsely regarding the aforesaid incident and the role of accused persons in the incident as I have settled the matter with the accused outside the Court. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely as I have been won over by the accused..."
(Emphasis supplied)
23. Quite lucidly, it is noted from the above that the complainant, under his examination in chief did not depose regarding the occurrence of any incident by/at the behest of the accused as well as that of the co-accused persons, as propounded in the complaint/instant chargesheet. In fact, PW-1 did not even assert about him having witnessed the incident of any sort or that of him having seen the accused persons, including accused, Naveen of being involved in any such occurrence, as otherwise averred in the instant case. On the contrary, as aforenoted, under his cross examination, PW-1 affirmed that the police had met him at the gate of college Hostel and made inquiries from SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 32 of 41 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.05.29 16:19:04 +0530 him/PW-1, however, denied that he/PW-1 tendered any statement to the police official. Correspondingly, PW-1, while admitting his signatures on statement Ex. PW1/A at point A, asserted that the said statement was not given by him to the police officials. On the contrary, as per PW-1, the police officials had obtained his signatures on blank paper. Concomitantly, PW-1 denied the suggestion that he was coerced or pressurised to vote for a particular person by Ram Chander and even denied the suggestion that Ram Chander threatened him that in case he stood elected, he would beat PW-1, while celebrating his victory, besides even in his/Ram Chander's defeat, he would beat PW-1 to mourn his defeat. PW-1 further denied the suggestion that accused persons Manpreet, Naveen Suhag and Ashutosh were present with Ram Chander at that time and even denied that he/PW-1 heard Ram Chander say to his said associates that Sachin Saurabh portrays as a leader ( Sachin Saurabh jyada neta banta hai) and even denied that he/Ram Chander proclaimed they would teach him/Sachin Saurabh a lesson. Further, under his cross examination, PW-1 further denied that Ram Chander, Manpreet, Ashutosh and accused Naveen Suhag, in furtherance of their common intention, gave beatings to Sachin Saurabh and Ram Chander; Ashutosh kicked and punched Sachin Saurabh; while Manpreet hit Sachin Saurabh with a cricket wicket; and accused Naveen Suhag hit Sachin Saurabh with a wooden paya of chair on his/Sachin Saurabh's head, to kill him due to which Sachin Saurabh sustained head injuries. PW-1 further inter alia denied having made any supplementary statement dated 05.09.2001 to the police official(s).
24. Concomitantly, PW-6/Rajat Singh Rathore deposed before this Court that in the year 2001, he/PW-6 was a Graduate SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 33 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.05.29 16:19:09 +0530 student in Hansraj College, Delhi and, residing in Hansraj College Hostel. Further, as per PW-6, somewhere in the month of September 2001, election of their College Students' Union were going to be held and on the eve of election day, he had gone to the lawns of Hansraj College, where he/PW-6 found that one student namely, Sachin Saurabh, lying in injured condition. However, PW-6 expressed inability to depose as to how the said person had sustained injuries as well as asserted that he did not know of Sachin Saurabh's assailants. Appositely, PW-6 was also cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State. However, even being so cross examined, nothing material and/or incriminating has been brought forth on record against the accused persons/accused, Naveen. Pertinent to reproduce the relevant extracts of said cross examination of PW-6, by/at the behest of State, as under;
"XXXXXX by Mr. ***, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
It is correct that the accused Naveen, who is present in the Court today was also a student in Hansraj College in year 2001. It is correct that I knew the accused Naveen and other persons, namely, Ram Chander, Manpreet and Ashutosh. (Vol. They were also student of Hansraj College). It is correct that Ram Chander was contesting the election and he was campaigning hard to get the votes of students of first year. It is wrong to suggest that on 04.09.2001 in my presence Ram Chander threatened Mr. Amit Kumar Raj and Sachin Saurabh by saying that aap mere paksh me vote dena or that I had given the said statement to the police. (witness is confronted with portion X to X-1 of the statement Mark PW6/A where it is so recorded to which witness stated that he had not given the said statement).
It is wrong to suggest that in evening hours on the same day, in my presence Ram Chander called Sachin Saurabh, Amit Kumar and other students of first year to his room in Hostel and threatened to cast votes in his favour otherwise he would kill/beat them to which Sachin Saurabh objected or that I had given the said statement to the police. (witness is SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 34 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 16:19:13 +0530 confronted with portion X-2 to X-3 of the statement Mark PW6/A where it is so recorded to which witness stated that he had not given the said statement).
It is wrong to suggest that in my presence, the aforesaid persons came to the lawn of Hansraj College and at about 08.45 p.m., Ram Chander told his associates Manpreet, Ashotosh and accused Naveen that yeh Sachin Saurabh neta banta hai aaj isko majaa chakhate hain or that I had given the said statement to the police. (witness is confronted with portion X-4 to X-5 of the statement Mark PW6/A where it is so recorded to which witness stated that he had not given the said statement).
It is wrong to suggest that in my presence, Ram Chander and Ashutosh gave beatings to Sachin with legs and fists and Manpreet hit Sachin Saurabh with cricket wicket and accused Naveen hit Sachin Saurabh with a chair leg (kursi ka paya) to kill him or that I had given the said statement to the police. (witness is confronted with portion X-6 to X-7 of the statement Mark PW6/A where it is so recorded to which witness stated that he had not given the said statement).
It is wrong to suggest that the incident of causing injury to Sachin Saurabh took place in my presence or that the accused Naveen along with Ram Chander, Ashutosh and Manpreet caused injuries to Sachin Saurabh in my presence.
It is correct that police had also taken me to police station and conducted some proceedings against me. (Vol. The said case has already been disposed off). It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely regarding the role of accused Naveen and other persons in the present case as I have been won over by him or any compromise has taken place between us. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely..."
(Emphasis supplied)
25. Ominously, it is seen from above the victim/PW-2/Sachin Saurabh; complainant/PW-1/Amit Kumar Raj and PW-6/ Rajat Singh Rathore have not supported the case of the prosecution even in so far as the occurrence of incident, i.e., of the victim, being subjected to any injury in the hands of the accused persons, including the accused, Naveen herein.
SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 35 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.05.29 16:19:18 +0530
Needless to reiterate that the none of the said witnesses have even identified the accused as one of the perpetrators of offence against the victim, despite being vigorously cross examined by/on behalf of the State. Pertinent at this stage to note that this Court is conscious of the settled law6 that there is no legal impediment to base a conviction upon the testimony of even of a hostile witness, if corroborated by other reliable evidence. In other words, when a complainant/witness turns hostile and even fails to identify an accused, though, the prosecution case may be weakened, however, the same would not lead to an automatic acquittal of such an accused. On the contrary, under such circumstances, court has to scrutinize the evidence, including any corroborating evidence, and the overall strength of the prosecution's case with greater caution, before reaching its final determination. However, in the instant case, when the entire material placed on record is conscientiously evaluated, this Court unambiguously reaches the sole conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a pale of doubt against the accused.
26. In respect of the foregoing, this Court deems it apposite to further note that though it is the prosecution's case that accused Naveen got recovered one paya/leg of wooden chair from the lawn near wall of Hansraj college vide Ex. PW4/H, however, there is nothing to show on record that the said wooden paya/leg of wooden chair was in fact deployed by the accused Naveen in inflicting injuries on the victim. Needless to mention that there is no FSL report regarding any blood mark/DNA/etc., on the said recovered wooden paya/leg of wooden chair. Further, the said recovery was effected from an open space, lawn of 6 Bhagwan Singh v. The State of Haryana, MANU/SC/0093/1975.
SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 36 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.05.29 16:19:23 +0530
Hansraj College by the concerned police officials/PW-4 and PW-5 and the police has failed to prove such recovery from the testimony of any independent witnesses/public witnesses. Quite ominously, prosecution has surprisingly, not even produced the disclosure statement of any of the accused persons, including the accused herein on record so as to attribute such recovery to the said accused/accused, Naveen.
27. Strikingly, in the instant case, there is another significant and glaring aspect that the co-accused persons, namely, Ram Chander, Ashutosh and Manpreet Singh have already been acquitted of the charges under Sections 308/34 IPC vide judgment dated 25.05.2004 and as per the prosecution's own case, there is no other accused in the instant case. Ergo, under such circumstances, conviction of accused, by seeking recourse to the provisions under 34 IPC cannot even be sustained under such circumstances. Reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Amogshidh Annappa Shendge & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2000(5) Bom CR 163: 2000 Bom CR(Cri), wherein the Hon'ble High Court, in an akin situation, remarked as under;
"13. The question which remains to be answered is that Mohan and Pandurang having been acquitted by the trial Court and the appellant Mallu having been acquitted by us, would it be proper to sustain the conviction of the appellant Amogshidh for the offence under section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. To that our answer is in the negative. Since according to the prosecution, in the instant case, only four persons participated and three of them have been acquitted, the conviction of the appellant for the offence of murder, with the aid of section 34 I.P.C., cannot per se stand.
Before section 34 I.P.C. can have application, there should be several persons, that is persons more then one, and it is only when there are more than one persons and they commit a criminal act, in furtherance of their common intention, would the SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 37 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL Date: GOYAL 2025.05.29 16:19:27 +0530 said section have an application.
Since there were only four persons in all and three have been acquitted, two by the trial Court and one by us, and the appellant Amogshidh is the sole accused who remains, he cannot be convicted for the murder of Rahul with the aid of section 34 I.P.C. because, no one remains with whom he could have shared the common intention for the aforesaid criminal act..."
(Emphasis supplied)
28. Consequently, in light of the foregoing depositions, discrepancies, omissions and lacunae in the prosecution's case, in order to successful bring home guilt of the accused in the instant case, it was incumbent on the prosecution to establish the case against the accused on the basis of other corroborative and reliable evidence, considering the hostility of the material/star prosecution witnesses, i.e., victim/PW-2/Sachin Saurabh; complainant/PW-1/Amit Kumar Raj and PW-6/ Rajat Singh Rathore. However, when the testimonies of various prosecution witnesses are scrupulously analysed, in light of other material placed on record, this Court unwaveringly reaches a conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused, beyond a shadow of doubt. In this regard, this Court deems it apposite at this juncture to reiterate as under;
a) The victim/PW-2/Sachin Saurabh;
complainant/PW-1/Amit Kumar Raj and PW-6/ Rajat Singh Rathore have not supported the case of the prosecution even in so far as the occurrence of incident, i.e., of the victim, being subjected to any injury in the hands of the accused persons, including the accused, Naveen herein. Needless to reiterate that the none of the said witnesses have even identified the accused as one of the perpetrators of offence against the victim despite being vigorously cross examined by/on behalf of the State;
b) The victim/PW-2 deposed that on 04.09.2001, at about 08.30 p.m., he/PW-2 along with his friends took dinner in the hostel mess and thereafter, they came out from there. As per PW-2, after coming out of the hostel mess, they saw that there was a crowd SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 38 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29 16:19:32 +0530 of students and a commotion was going on in the lawn of their Hostel. Further, it was proclaimed by PW-2 that it was dark in the lawn and he was unable to see as to who was causing commotion. Thereafter, as per PW-2, the persons present in the crowd assaulted him/PW-2 and he became unconscious. PW-2 further asserted that he regained consciousness in Hospital. Markedly, as per PW-2, he was not in a position to identify the persons who had assaulted him/PW-2 as it was dark at that time and he could not see the assailants;
c) PW-2 in his cross examination by/at the behest of the State, denied/negated the occurrence against him by/at the behest of the accused. Correspondingly, despite being rigorously cross examined by/on behalf of the State, PW-2 failed to disclose anything incriminating against the accused herein. In fact, PW-2 even went on to inter alia deny the suggestion that the accused Naveen Suhag hit him/PW-2 with a wooden paya of chair on his/PW-2's head to kill him;
d) Concomitantly, PW-1 and PW-6 have failed to disclose the occurrence or identify the accused as the perpetrator of offence, despite being cross examined by/on behalf of the State;
e) Despite hostility of the victim/PW-2/Sachin Saurabh; complainant/PW-1/Amit Kumar Raj and PW-6/ Rajat Singh Rathore, even the other material placed on record is not sufficient, in the considered opinion of this Court, to prove the case of the prosecution beyond shadow of doubt against the accused persons.
f) Though it is the prosecution's case that accused Naveen got recovered one paya/leg of wooden chair from the lawn near wall of Hansraj college vide Ex.
PW4/H, however, there is nothing to show on record that the said wooden paya/leg of wooden chair was in fact deployed by the accused Naveen in inflicting injuries on the victim. Needless to mention that there is no FSL report regarding any blood mark/DNA/etc., on the said recovered wooden paya/leg of wooden chair. Further, the said recovery was affected from an open space, lawn of Hansraj College by the concerned police officials/PW-4 and PW-5 and the police has failed to prove such recovery from the testimony of any independent witnesses/public witnesses. Quite ominously, prosecution has surprisingly, not even produced the disclosure statement of any of the accused persons, including the accused herein on record so as to attribute such recovery to the said accused/accused, Naveen;
SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 39 of 41 Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.05.29 16:19:36 +0530
g) Ominously, co-accused persons, namely, Ram Chander, Ashutosh and Manpreet Singh have already been acquitted of the charges under Sections 308/34 IPC vide judgment dated 25.05.2004 and as per the prosecution's own case, there is no other accused in the instant case. Ergo, under such circumstances, conviction of accused, by seeking recourse to the provisions under 34 IPC cannot even be sustained under such circumstances (Ref.:
Amogshidh Annappa Shendge & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2000(5) Bom CR 163: 2000 Bom CR(Cri)); and
h) Further, considering that the provisions under Section 174A IPC were brought under the statute book subsequently, on 23.06.2006, however, accused, Naveen was already declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 21.02.2004 of the Ld. MM, as aforenoted, charges under Section 174A IPC were not framed against the said accused for the offence under Section 174A IPC. (Ref.: Ishrat Hussain v. State of Maharashtra, 2013 SCC Online Bom 1462).
CONCLUSION:
29. Conclusively, in light of the foregoing, it is reiterated that from the material placed on record and arguments addressed on behalf of the State as well as by/on behalf of the accused, in the considered opinion of this Court, the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden to prove its case 'beyond reasonable doubt' against the accused, namely, Naveen. On the contrary, in light of the various contradictions, lacunae, and material omissions, as hereinunder observed, benefit of doubt must, in the considered opinion of this Court, accrue in favour of the accused. Needless to mention at this stage that it is trite law 7 that the prosecution has to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt and the accused should be considered innocent, till it is established otherwise. It is equally a settled law 8 that in case where two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused 7 Meena v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 5 SCC 21.
8Raghunath v. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 398, Dhan Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1980) 1 SCC 605 and State of U.P. v. Nandu Vishwakarma, (2009) 14 SCC 501.
SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 40 of 41 Digitally signed ABHISHEK by ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.05.29 16:19:41 +0530
and the other adversely against it, the view favouring the accused must be accepted.
30. Accordingly, accused, namely, Naveen is acquitted of the charges levelled against him under Section(s) 308/34. Consequently, accused, namely, Naveen is admitted to bail on furnishing of a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) along with one surety of the like amount, as per the provisions under Section 437A Cr.P.C./Section 481 BNSS. Further, as requested, the bail bond be furnished by the accused within a period of one week from the date of this judgment.
31. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
ABHISHEK
ABHISHEK GOYAL
GOYAL Date:
2025.05.29
16:19:48
+0530
Announced in the open Court (Abhishek Goyal)
on 29.05.2025. ASJ-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi SC No. 554/2023 State v. Naveen Page 41 of 41