Delhi District Court
State vs Pappu on 12 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS -05
DISTRICT- NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY: SH. SARTHAK PANWAR, DJS
State Vs. Pappu etc
FIR No. 80/2018
PS Shahbad Dairy
U/s. 325/341/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
1) Case ID : 3702/2019
2) The date of commission of offence : 09.02.2018
3) The name of the complainant : Ankit
4) The name of accused persons : (1) Pappu S/o Kalu Ram
(2) Amar Chand S/o Kalu
Ram
5) Ld. APP for the State : Dr. Deepak Saini
6) Offence involved : 325/341/34 IPC
7) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8) Final order : Acquitted
9) Judgment reserved on : 12.08.2025
10) Judgment announced on : 12.08.2025
State Vs. Pappu etc FIR no. 80/2018 1 of 5
Digitally signed by
SARTHAK SARTHAK PANWAR
PANWAR Date: 2025.08.12
17:46:22 +0530
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Briefly, the allegations of the prosecution are that on 09.02.2018, at about 08:00 pm, near old bus stand, Shahbad Dairy, accused persons Pappu and Amar Chand in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the complainant namely Ankit and both the accused had also voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the complainant and thus accused persons thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 325/341/34 IPC within the cognizance of this Court.
2. Investigation was conducted into the allegations. Upon completion thereof, charge sheet was filed. The accused persons were summoned. Compliance of section 207 CrPC. was done by providing copy of the charge sheet and annexed documents to the accused persons.
3. Upon finding a prima facie case against the accused persons, charges for the offences punishable U/s 325/341/34 IPC were framed against the accused persons. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate the allegations, following witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution.
5. During the course of trial PW/ injured Santosh has compounded the offences u/s 325/341/34 IPC against accused persons.
State Vs. Pappu etc FIR no. 80/2018 Digitally signed 2 of 5 SARTHAK by SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2025.08.12 17:46:28 +0530
6. PW Sh. Ankit has deposed that on 09.02.2018, at around 08:30 pm, he was going to his house from sector 28, Rohini by foot and when he reached near purana bus stand, Shahbad Dairy, two person came and hit him on his face with a sharp edge weapon and he became unconscious. Thereafter, his friend Santosh came and took him to the hospital. He further failed to identify the accused persons.
7. Since the PW Ankit had turned hostile, thereafter with the permission of the court he was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement. Thereafter, he was duly cross-examined by Ld. LADC.
8. Law relating to hostile witness has been categorically discussed by the Apex Court in the case titled as Sat Pal vs Delhi Administration 1976 AIR 294, 1976 SCR (2) 11:
"From the above conspectus, it emerges clear that even in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the court, by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the Judge of fact to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may, after reading and considering the evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record that part of his testimony which he Digitally signed by SARTHAK State Vs. Pappu etc FIR no. 80/2018 3 of 5 SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2025.08.12 17:46:34 +0530 finds to be credit worthy and act upon it. If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence, discard his evidence in toto.".
Since two injured persons in the present matter i.e. PW Ankit had turned hostile in the present matter and PW Santosh had compounded the offences against both the accused persons and PW HC Vipin was merely a formal witness who was not present at the scene of incident, therefore, remaining witnesses were also dropped from list of witnesses as they were formal in nature and examining them would have been a futile exercise at the cost of judicial time and resources as their testimonies, even if accepted unrebutted, would not have been sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons. Hence, PE was ultimately closed, in view of the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration and Anr: 1996 JCC 507. Further, in the absence of any incriminating evidence against the accused persons, recording of statement u/s 313 CrPC was also dispensed with. Accused persons further chose not to lead any DE.
11. Final arguments were heard and record of the case has been perused.
12. It is the cardinal principle of criminal justice delivery system that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts. No matter how weak the defence of accused is but, the golden rule of the criminal jurisprudence is that the case of the prosecution has to stand on its own legs.
State Vs. Pappu etc FIR no. 80/2018 Digitally signed by 4 of 5 SARTHAK SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2025.08.12 17:46:43 +0530
13. Since two injured persons in the present matter i.e. PW Ankit had turned hostile in the present matter and PW Santosh had compounded the offence against both the accused persons and PW HC Vipin was merely a formal witness who was not present at the scene of incident, therefore, the remaining witnesses were also dropped from list of witnesses as they were formal in nature who were not present at the place of incident. Hence, this court does away with the necessity of recording testimonies of remaining formal prosecution witnesses and recording statement of accused person (SA). Since no incriminating evidence against the accused persons has been brought on record by the prosecution, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, this court acquits the accused persons namely Pappu and Amar Chand of charges u/s 325/341/34 IPC.
Digitally signed by SARTHAK SARTHAK PANWAR PANWAR Date: 2025.08.12 17:46:52 +0530 Pronounced in the open (SARTHAK PANWAR) Court on 12.08.2025 JMFC-05 (North), Rohini Courts New Delhi 12.08.2025 State Vs. Pappu etc FIR no. 80/2018 5 of 5