Delhi District Court
State vs Ashraf Beg on 31 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF DR. SAURABH KULSHRESHTHA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03: WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI.
CNR No. DLWT01-000233/2022
SC No. 16/2022
FIR No. 418/2021
PS: Moti Nagar
U/s. 307/34 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act
In the matter of:
State (NCT of Delhi)
Versus
Asraf Beg
S/o Mr. Irshad Beg
R/o H. No. F-83, Karam Pura,
Delhi. ..........Accused
Date of Institution : 07.01.2022
Date of reserving judgment : 20.01.2026
Date of Decision : 31.01.2026
Decision : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. The accused namely Asraf Beg has faced trial in the present case for the commission of the offences punishable under section 307/34 of the IPC and sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act.
Factual Background
2. The version of the prosecution is that on 11.07.2021 at about State v. Asraf Beg Page No. 1 of 24 FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar 09:05 PM, accused Asraf Beg along with his associates including CCL 'D', had come at the cart of the victim/ complainant Shri Deepak Singh, stationed near Milan Cinema road, Subhash Chowk, Delhi, and had consumed boiled eggs and when the victim/ complainant asked for money for the same, the accused Asraf Beg along with his associates started beating the victim/ complainant and further the accused Asraf Beg took out a button operated knife from the pocket of his pant and attacked the victim/ complainant with the said knife, with the intention to kill him, however, the complainant ducked and the knife blow landed on the head of the victim/ complainant, who suffered injury and started bleeding.
3. The accused Asraf Beg (along with the knife) and CCL 'D' were apprehended by the public persons. Someone called the police at 100 number and the PCR van reached at the spot. The public persons handed over the accused to the police and the police took the victim to the hospital where he was medically examined. Thereafter the present FIR was registered on the statement of the victim/ complainant. The accused Asraf Beg was arrested in the present case and the button operated knife recovered from him was seized. The injuries suffered by the victim/ complainant were opined to be simple in nature. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences under sections 307/34 IPC and under sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.
State v. Asraf Beg Page No. 2 of 24 FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar Charge
4. On consideration of the entire material on record, charges were framed against the accused Asraf Beg for the offences punishable under sections 307/34 of the IPC and sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, to which the accused pleaded not-guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
5. The prosecution led evidence and examined 08 witnesses in all to bring home the charges against the accused.
6. PW-1 Deepak has deposed that he has been selling eggs on a cart at Subhash Chowk near Milan Cinema for about 15 years. PW1 further deposed that on the day of the incident, in the summer season last year, at about 9:00 PM while he was selling eggs on his cart at Subhash Chowk, when accused Ashraf Beg and one CCL 'D' along with their associates came to his cart and they asked him to give them boiled eggs to eat. PW1 further deposed that after they ate eggs, when he asked for money, the accused persons started beating him. PW1 further deposed that he fell down on the ground and somebody from them stabbed him on his head. Public persons apprehended accused Ashraf Beg and CCL 'D'. PCR arrived at the spot. PW1 further deposed that a knife was recovered from the possession of accused Ashraf Beg which was taken into possession by the police. PW1 further deposed that PCR van took him to Acharya Bhikshu Hospital where he was medically treated. PW1 State v. Asraf Beg Page No. 3 of 24 FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar further deposed that doctor took into possession his blood-stained shirt and police recorded his statement which is Ex. PWI/A. PW1 further deposed that he had shown the place of incident to the police. The arrest memo of accused Ashraf Beg is Ex. PW1/B; the sketch of the knife is Ex. PW1/C; and the seizure memo of knife is Ex. PW1/D.
7. PW-2 SI Om Prakash deposed that on 11.07.2021 he was posted as In-charge, PCR Van Power -9 Alfa and was on duty from 08:00 PM to 08:00AM and on receiving a call from the Control Room, he along with the other staff reached at Milan Cinema Road, Near Subhash Chowk, where injured Deepak Singh met them and they shifted him to Acharya Bhikshu Govt. Hospital where he was admitted.
8. PW-3 HC Anil Kumar deposed that on 04.10.2021 he was posted at PS Moti Nagar as Constable and on that day, on the directions of IO, he obtained one sealed parcel stated to contain shirt of injured Deepak, one sealed parcel stated to contain knife along with sample seal from the MHC(M) and he deposited the same at FSL, Rohini vide RC No. 212/21/21. Thereafter, he deposited the receipt of FSL with the MHC(M). PW-3 further deposed that till the time the parcels were in my possession, the same have not been tampered with. PW-3 further deposed that on 11.07.2021 he was performing patrolling duty in the area of Milan Cinema, Karampura, Delhi and during patrolling, he got information that one egg-hawker had sustained stab injury with a knife and he reached at the spot where the said egg-hawker used to run his cart. There he got information that the injured had been shifted to ABG State v. Asraf Beg Page No. 4 of 24 FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar Hospital, Moti Nagar, Delhi. PW-3 further deposed that he saw that some public persons had apprehended two persons namely Ashraf Begh and CCL 'D' at the spot. He found CCL 'D' in injured condition. PW-3 further deposed that CCL 'D' was sent to the hospital through his relative. PW-3 further deposed that during the cursory search of Ashraf Begh, he recovered one button actuated knife from the right-side pant pocket of accused Ashraf Begh. Thereafter, with the help of public persons, he brought the accused Ashraf Begh to PS Moti Nagar and handed over his custody and the recovered button actuated knife to ASI Moti Ram. PW-3 further deposed that IO took the measurement of the knife and prepared the sketch of knife which is Ex. PW1/C. IO put the said button actuated knife into a white color cloth and prepared a pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of 'MR' and thereafter IO prepared the seizure memo of the button actuated knife which is Ex. PW1/D. PW-3 further deposed that after use, the seal was handed over to him by the IO. IO arrested the accused Ashraf Beg and prepared his arrest and personal search memos. PW-3 further deposed that on 12.07.2021, he alongwith ASI Moti Ram went to the houPW1 deposed that he cannot identify the knise of CCL 'D' where IO prepared his apprehension memo. PW3 has correctly identified the knife Ex. P-1 by stating that it is the same knife which was recovered from pant pocket of accused Ashraf Beg.
9. PW-4 HC Vipin Kumar deposed that on 11.07.2021 he was posted at PS Moti Nagar and on that day, on receiving DD No. 93A, he along with ASI Moti Ram reached at the spot i.e. Milan Cinema Road, State v. Asraf Beg Page No. 5 of 24 FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar Near Subhash Chowk, where they came to know that the injured had been shifted to the hospital and that two assailants were apprehended by the public persons, who had been handed over by them to a police official. PW4 further deposed that he along with ASI Moti Ram went to ABG hospital, Moti Nagar, where ASI Moti Ram obtained MLC of injured Deepak. Injured Deepak told them that he will give his statement later on at the PS. PW4 further deposed that the doctor handed over a sealed parcel stated to contain blood stained clothes of injured Deepak along with sample seal which were taken into possession by ASI Moti Ram vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/A. Thereafter they came back to the PS where Ct. Anil handed over the accused Ashraf Beg and one CCL 'D' to ASI Moti Ram. PW4 further deposed that Ct. Anil also handed over the buttondar knife recovered from accused Ashraf Beg to ASI Moti Ram. In the meanwhile, injured Deepak also came to the PS. ASI Moti Ram recorded his statement, prepared rukka and got registered the FIR and thereafter, he (PW-4) along with injured Deepak and ASI Moti Ram went to the spot where at the instance of injured Deepak, ASI Moti Ram prepared site plan Ex. PW4/B. PW4 further deposed that they came back to the PS where ASI Moti Ram prepared sketch of the knife, kept the knife in a cloth parcel which was sealed with the seal of 'MR' and prepared seizure memo. Accused Ashraf was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/B and personally searched vide personal search memo Ex. PW4/C. PW4 further deposed that IO ASI Moti Ram recorded the disclosure statement of accused which is Ex. PW4/D. PW4 identified the knife Ex. P-1 as the one handed over by Ct. Anil.
State v. Asraf Beg Page No. 6 of 24 FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar
10. PW-5 SI Hari Charan (Retired) deposed that on 12.07.2021, he was posted at PS Moti Nagar and on that day, he was working as DO and his duty hours were from 12:00 AM midnight to 08:00 AM and that at about 04:56 AM, he received a rukka through IO/ ASI Moti Ram. Thereafter he made endorsement on the rukka which is Ex. PW-5/A and he got registered the present FIR and after registration of the same, he handed over a copy of FIR and original rukka to IO/ASI Moti Ram. The rukka is Ex. PW-5/B, the copy of FIR is Ex. PW-5/C and the certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act regarding the registration of FIR through computer is Ex. PW-5/D.
11. PW-6 ASI Anil Kumar deposed that on 11.07.02021, he was posted at PS Moti Nagar as ASI and was performing his duty as Duty Officer from 04:00 PM to 12:00 Midnight and on that day, at about 09:56 PM, an information was received that one person had been stabbed by another person with a knife at Karampura, Water Plant Market, Delhi; and he entered the same in GD vide entry no. 93A, the true copy of which is Ex. PW-6/A; and thereafter he gave the aforesaid information to ASI Moti Ram telephonically for necessary action in the present case.
12. PW-7 SI Moti Ram deposed that on 11.07.2021 he was posted at PS Moti Nagar as ASI and on that day at around 10:00 PM, he received DD No. 93A, regarding stabbing by knife at Milan Cinema and accordingly, he along with HC Vipin Kumar reached at the spot i.e. Milan Cinema Road, Near Subhash Chowk, Delhi, where he came to know that the injured person had been shifted to ABG hospital, Moti State v. Asraf Beg Page No. 7 of 24 FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar Nagar, Delhi by the PCR Van and two assailants had been taken to the concerned PS by the beat staff of the local PS. Accordingly, he along with HC Vipin went to ABG hospital, Moti Nagar where he obtained the MLC of injured Deepak Singh. He asked the injured Deepak to give his statement but the injured Deepak Singh told him that he will give his statement later on at the PS. PW7 further deposed that the doctor handed over sealed parcels stated to contain the blood stained clothes and blood sample of injured Deepak along with the sample seal which were taken into possession by him vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/A. Thereafter they came back to the PS. PW7 further deposed that in the morning of 12.07.2021, the injured Deepak came to the PS and met him and gave his statement which is Ex. PWI/A; and he prepared the tehrir on the basis of the statement of the complainant Deepak Singh which is Ex. PW7/A; and thereafter he handed over the aforesaid tehrir to the Duty officer for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, the Duty Officer handed over to him a copy of the FIR and original tehrir. Thereafter, he along with injured Deepak and HC Vipin went to the spot where at the instance of injured Deepak, he prepared the site plan Ex. PW4/B. PW7 further deposed that thereafter, they came back to the PS. Ct. Anil handed over to him the accused Ashraf Beg and one knife. He prepared the sketch of the said knife after taking its measurements and the sketch of the said knife is Ex PW1/C. He obtained the signatures of complainant Deepak and accused Ashraf Beg on the sketch of the aforesaid knife. He kept the knife in a cloth parcel which was sealed with the seal of 'MR' and he prepared seizure memo which is Ex. PW1/D. He deposited the said knife State v. Asraf Beg Page No. 8 of 24 FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar in the Malkhana of the PS. The medical examination of the accused Ashraf Beg was got conducted at ABG Hospital. After his medical examination, he arrested the accused Ashraf Beg in the present case and prepared his arrest memo which is Ex. PW1/B. He conducted the personal search of the accused Ashraf Beg and prepared his personal search memo which is Ex. PW4/C. He interrogated the accused Ashraf Beg and recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW4/D. He produced the accused before the Ld. Duty MM, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and the Ld. MM sent him to Judicial custody. PW7 further deposed that thereafter, he along with Police staff came to PS. He also conducted investigation regarding CCL 'D'. He recorded the statements of HC Vipin and Ct. Anil in the present case. PW7 further deposed that he sent the recovered knife to DDU hospital through Ct. Anil for seeking subsequent opinion. After obtaining subsequent opinion with respect to the said knife, the sealed pullanda of the knife was again deposited in the Malkhana. Afterwards, the sealed pullanda of the knife, sample seal and blood stained clothes were sent to FSL through Ct. Anil for obtaining the opinion. PW7 further deposed that after completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet. PW7 identified the knife Ex. P-1 as the one handed over by Ct. Anil.
13. PW-8 Dr. Jatin Bodwal deposed that on 24.09.2021, he was working at DDU Hospital, Hari Nagar, New Delhi as Specialist in the Department of Forensic Medicine. On that day, ASI Moti Ram submitted an application along with a sealed parcel containing knife, copy of MLC State v. Asraf Beg Page No. 9 of 24 FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar no. 7635/21 dated 11.07.2021, copy of FIR, seizure memo and road certificate no. 194/21/21 dated 24.09.2021 and sought subsequent opinion regarding consistency of the weapon with respect to the injury sustained on the body of injured Deepak. PW-8 further deposed that after examination of the weapon of offence and the injury mentioned in the said MLC, he opined that the injury mentioned in the MLC is possible by the examined weapon i.e. knife. His detailed opinion is Ex. PW8/A and the sketch of the knife is Ex. PW8/B. PW-8 further deposed that after the opinion was given, the knife was resealed with the seal of PMDDUH and handed over to IO ASI Moti Ram along with sample seal.
Admission/ Denial of documents u/s 294 Cr.P.C.
14. The accused admitted the FSL report along with allelic data which is Ex. PA1 and MLC No. 7635 dated 11.08.2021 of the injured/ complainant Deepak which is Ex. PA-2, in terms of Section 294 Cr.P.C.
Statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C
15. Thereafter, the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused and the statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused denied the prosecution version and stated that he is innocent. He further stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further stated that he had not caused injuries to the complainant and in fact he was not present at the spot of the incident. He further stated that he was lifted from his house by the police and State v. Asraf Beg Page No. 10 of 24 FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar falsely implicated in this case. He further stated that no knife was recovered from him and the knife Ex. P-1 has been planted upon him.
Defence Evidence
16. The accused chose not to lead any evidence in support of his defence.
17. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as the Ld. Counsel for the accused Asraf Beg and have given due consideration to their rival contentions and perused the record.
Appreciation, Analysis and Findings:
18. The version of the prosecution is that on 11.07.2021 at about 09:05 PM near Milan Cinema road, Subhash Chowk, Delhi, the accused Asraf Beg, along with his associates including CCL 'D', in furtherance of their common intention, had given beatings to the victim/ complainant Shri Deepak Singh and further the accused Asraf Beg took out a button operated knife from the pocket of his pant and attacked the victim/ complainant with the said knife, with the intention to kill him, however, the complainant ducked and the knife blow landed on the head of the victim/ complainant as a result of which the victim/ complainant suffered injuries. The accused was apprehended at the spot and the said button operated knife was recovered from his possession.
State v. Asraf Beg Page No. 11 of 24 FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar
19. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that PW1 has confirmed the presence of accused at the place of the incident and the fact that the accused along with his associates had given beatings to him. He has further submitted that PW-1 has further deposed that one of the assailants had assaulted him with a knife and a knife was recovered from the accused. He has further submitted that the MLC of the victim/ complainant shows that he had sustained CLW of 7 cm x 1 cm on the forehead area. He has further submitted that PW3 has categorically deposed that the button operated knife was recovered from the accused. He has further submitted that PW8, the forensic expert, has deposed that the injuries mentioned in the MLC are possible by the recovered knife. He has further submitted the FSL report confirms that the DNA profile generated from the source of the shirt of the injured and from the knife were found to be similar. He has therefore argued that the prosecution has been able to establish its case. He has prayed that the accused be convicted for the offences under sections 307/34 of the IPC and sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.
20. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that PW1/ victim has not supported the case of the prosecution and in his cross examination he has stated that he had not seen the accused at the spot. He has further argued that PW-1 has not identified his alleged shirt and the knife in question. He has further argued that the testimony of PW3 is doubtful and no public person has been examined in the present case. He has further argued that since the victim has categorically denied that the produced shirt is his shirt, the FSL report State v. Asraf Beg Page No. 12 of 24 FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar has no value. He has further contended that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has, therefore, prayed that accused be acquitted for the alleged offences.
21. Coming to the evidence of the victim, it is seen that the victim/ PW1 Deepak Singh has deposed in his examination in chief that accused Asraf Beg had come along with his associates including CCL 'D' at his at Subhash Chowk and on being asked to pay money for boiled eggs consumed by them, the accused and his associates started beating him and he fell down on the ground and somebody from them had stabbed him on his head; and that the public persons apprehended accused Asraf Beg and CCL 'D'; and that a knife was recovered from the possession of accused Asraf Beg which was taken into possession by the police and the PCR van took him to ABG Hospital. However, a perusal of the testimony of the victim/ PW-1 reveals that he has not unequivocally and clearly asserted that it was the accused Asraf Beg who had stabbed him with the knife on his head.
22. Further during his cross examination by the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, PW-1 denied that he had stated to the police that the accused took out a button actuated knife from his pocket and while the accused was stabbing him, he bowed down and received injuries on his head. Thus, the victim/ PW-1, in his cross examination by the Ld. Addl. P.P for the State, has specifically denied that it was the accused Asraf Beg who had stabbed him with a knife. PW-1 further denied the suggestion that he has been pressurized by the family members and State v. Asraf Beg Page No. 13 of 24 FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar friends of the accused to depose falsely. Furthermore, in his cross examination by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, the victim/ PW-1 categorically admitted that he had not seen the accused Asraf Beg at the spot and thus in view of this admission the victim has completely exonerated the accused.
23. In so far as the recovery of the knife from the accused is concerned, although in his examination in chief, PW1 has stated that a knife was recovered from the possession of accused Asraf Beg, however he refused to identify the button actuated knife purportedly recovered from the accused. During his cross examination by the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, he was questioned that "Q. On 04.05.2022, during your examination before the Court, you deposed that a knife was recovered from the possession of accused Ashraf Beg and your blood stained shirt was taken into possession by the doctor, whereas today, you are deposing that the shirt does not belong to you and you cannot identify the knife. Which of your statement is correct?" and he answered that "Whatever I have stated today is true.". Thus PW-1 did not support the case of the prosecution during his cross examination by the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State with respect to the recovery of the alleged knife from the possession of the accused. In view of the aforesaid discrepancies the testimony of PW-1, the victim, cannot be regarded as reliable and worthy of credence.
24. It is further seen that the case of the prosecution is that the accused was apprehended at the spot with the knife by public persons;
State v. Asraf Beg Page No. 14 of 24 FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar someone made a PCR call and the PCR van arrived at the spot and the accused along with the recovered knife was handed over to the police and the PCR van took the victim to the hospital.
25. Now PW2, who is the In-charge of the PCR Van has deposed that he reached at the spot on receiving a call from the Control Room where the injured met him and he immediately shifted the injured to the hospital. On the other hand, PW3 HC Anil Kumar has deposed that he was patrolling in the area of Milan Cinema, Karampura and on receipt of information regarding the incident, he reached at the spot where he found that the injured had already been shifted to Acharya Bhikshu Government Hospital. He further stated that he saw that public persons had apprehended accused Asraf Beg and CCL 'D' and on search of accused Asraf Beg one button actuated knife was recovered from the right-side pocket of his pant; and that with the help of public persons he brought the accused Asraf Beg to the PS and handed over the accused along with the recovered button actuated knife to ASI Moti Ram.
26. From the testimonies of PW2 and PW3, it is clear that PW2 had reached at the place of the incident prior to PW3 because when PW-3 reached at the spot the victim had already been taken to the hospital. None of them have stated that they found or met the other at the spot. Now, if the PCR In-charge (PW-2) had reached at the spot of incident first, then it is incomprehensible as to why he did not find the accused along with the button actuated knife at the spot, apprehended by the public persons, and if he did find him at the spot why he took no State v. Asraf Beg Page No. 15 of 24 FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar steps for securing the custody of the accused and sending him to the police station. PW-2 has not said anything about the accused being apprehended by the public persons at the spot. This lacuna compels this Court to disbelieve the testimony of PW-3 that the accused was found apprehended by the public persons at the spot by him.
27. Further in his statement Ex. PW 1/A, the victim has stated that the public persons had apprehended the accused with the knife which was used by him to cause injuries to the victim. If that is the case, either the knife would have been snatched by the public persons from the accused or it might have dropped on the ground while the accused was apprehended by the public persons. It is not believable that the public persons apprehended the accused with the knife, but permitted him to retain the said knife and put the blood stained knife back inside the pocket of his pant. Thus, the testimony of PW-3 is not believable that on his arrival the said knife was recovered from the pocket of the pant of the accused by PW3. It appears that there something more than what meets the eye. It is further seen that no finger prints were lifted from the knife to establish that the accused had used the said knife.
28. Moreover, no public persons who had allegedly witnessed the assault or had apprehended the accused have been examined as witnesses in the present case. Even no public witness was joined in the recovery proceedings related to the knife. Even the PCR caller has not been traced or examined by the police. Thus, there is no independent witness in the present case and since the testimony of the victim is State v. Asraf Beg Page No. 16 of 24 FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar inherently contradictory and does not appear to be credible, the absence of any public witness/ independent witness again is a lacuna which renders the prosecution case not worthy of acceptance.
29. Another flaw in the prosecution case is the delay in the registration of the FIR. In the judgment titled as Thulia Kali v. State of T.N. reported as (1972) 3 SCC 393 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:
"........... First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eyewitnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in the lodging of the first State v. Asraf Beg Page No. 17 of 24 FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar information report should be satisfactorily explained..." [Para 12]
30. Adverting to the facts of the present case, there is considerable delay in registration of the FIR. The incident took place on 9:05 PM on 11.07.2021 and the victim reached at the hospital at around 10:28 PM. PW7 SI Moti Ram met the injured at the hospital and asked him to give his statement; however, the victim did not give his statement at that point of time and his statement has been recorded afterwards at around 04:40 AM on 12.07.2021 and the FIR was subsequently registered at around 04.56 AM on 12.07.2021. Thus, there is a delay in registration of the FIR which has not been explained and the possibility of the accused being falsely implicated as a result of deliberation and consultation cannot be ruled out and therefore the beneficiary of this delay is the accused.
31. Furthermore, as per the MLC when the victim reached at the hospital, he was conscious and oriented and he suffered only simple injuries. At the time of preparation of the MLC the victim disclosed the alleged history of physical assault, however, he has not named the accused Asraf Beg as one of the culprits. This omission also goes in favour of the accused and it cannot be ruled out that the accused was falsely implicated later on.
32. It is further seen that PW7 IO ASI Moti Ram has deposed that on the night of 11.07.2021 they met the injured at the hospital and came back to the police station as the injured did not give his statement.
State v. Asraf Beg Page No. 18 of 24 FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar PW7 further deposed that in the morning of 12.07.2021, the injured Deepak came to the PS and met him and gave his statement which is Ex. PWI/A; and he got registered the FIR. The FIR has been registered at 04.56 AM on 12.07.2021. PW- 7 further deposed that thereafter he along with injured Deepak and HC Vipin went to the spot where at the instance of injured Deepak, he prepared the site plan Ex. PW4/B. PW7 further deposed that thereafter, they came back to the PS and it was thereafter that Ct. Anil (PW-3) handed over to him the accused Ashraf Beg and one knife.
33. Now PW-3 Ct. Anil has stated that he immediately reached at the spot after the incident which took place at around 09.05 PM on 11.07.2021 and took the custody of the accused who had been apprehended by the public persons, recovered the button actuated knife from his possession and brought him to the PS with the help of public persons and over the accused and the knife to ASI Moti Ram. All this would have hardly taken one hour. However, PW-7 ASI Moti Ram states that the accused was handed over by Ct. Anil in the morning of 12.07.2021. Thus there appears to be some disconnect between the statements of PW-3 and PW-7 on this aspect which strikes at the credibility of their testimonies. This further corroborates the contention of the accused that he was not apprehended from the spot and he was lifted from his house and falsely implicated in this case.
34. Coming to the forensic evidence, PW-8 has deposed that he had opined that the injury mentioned in the MLC report is possible with State v. Asraf Beg Page No. 19 of 24 FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar the recovered knife. Further IO/ PW-7 has deposed that the blood stained clothes of the injured Deepak Singh along with sample weal were handed over to him by the doctor and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/A. As per the FSL report, the DNA profiles generated from the shirt of the injured and the knife were found to be similar.
35. However, in so far as the recovery of the knife from the accused is concerned the same is shrouded in doubt. Further PW-1 has categorically stated that the shirt produced in the Court was not his shirt and the same does not belong to him. In his cross examination by the Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, he denied the suggestion that he was wearing the Shirt shown to him, at the time of the incident and he clarified that he was wearing a T-shirt at the time of the incident. Thus, the victim has categorically denied that the shirt produced in the Court belongs to him, therefore the FSL report, which records that the DNA profile generated from the shirt of the injured and the knife were found to be similar, does not help the case of the prosecution. Moreover, the knife which was been sent to FSL has been described as a 'folding knife with plastic handle"
whereas the knife produced in the Court (Ex. P-1) was having wooden pieces affixed on the handle. The forensic evidence therefore does not help the case of the prosecution as neither it has been established that the shirt belonged to the injured nor it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the knife in question was recovered from the accused.
State v. Asraf Beg Page No. 20 of 24 FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar
36. It may be noted that in the judgment titled as "S. L. Goswami v. State of M.P." reported as 1972 CRI. L. J. 511 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"....In our view, the onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution. Where the onus shifts to the accused, and the evidence on his behalf probabilises the plea he will be entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt....."
37. The onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt State v. Asraf Beg Page No. 21 of 24 FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar of the accused the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Reference may be made to the judgment titled as Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur reported as VIII (2007) SLT 454 (SC).
38. In the judgment titled as Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya v. State of Rajasthan reported as (2013) 5 SCC 722 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
".......Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that `may be' proved and `will be proved'. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason, that the mental distance between `may be' and `must be' is quite large and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, the court must maintain the vital distance between conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of State v. Asraf Beg Page No. 22 of 24 FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense. (Vide: Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Mahrashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622; Subhash Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 1 SCC 702; Ashish Batham v. State of M.P., AIR 2002 SC 3206; Narendra Singh & Anr. v. State of M.P., AIR 2004 SC 3249; State through CBI v. Mahender Singh Dahiya, AIR 2011 SC 1017; and Ramesh Harijan v. State v. State of U.P., AIR 2012 SC 1979)...."
39. Adverting to the facts of the present case, I have already observed that the testimony of PW-1, the victim, cannot be regarded as reliable or worthy of credence. No independent eyewitness has been examined, nor has any CCTV footage been produced, which establishes the complicity of the present accused in the alleged incident. There are various other lacunae in the prosecution case which render the State v. Asraf Beg Page No. 23 of 24 FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar prosecution case not worthy of acceptance. Thus, neither the recovery of the alleged button actuated knife from the possession of the accused nor the allegation that the accused had stabbed the victim with the said knife has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the material on record, when viewed in light of the defence of the accused, and when examined on the touchstone of the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charges against the accused Asraf Beg for the offences punishable under sections 307/34 of the IPC and under sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.
Conclusion:
40. On the basis of the material available on record I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the alleged offences against the accused Asraf Beg. Benefit of doubt is given to the accused. The accused Asraf Beg is accordingly acquitted for offences under section 307/34 IPC and under sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.
41. File be consigned to Record Room, after necessary compliance. Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH KULSHRESHTHA KULSHRESHTHA Date: 2026.01.31 16:54:09 +0530 (Pronounced in the open court on the 31.01.2026).
(Dr. Saurabh Kulshreshtha)
Additional Sessions Judge-03 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
State v. Asraf Beg Page No. 24 of 24
FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar