Delhi District Court
State vs Amandeep Singh on 29 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. SAURABH KULSHRESHTHA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03: WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI.
CNR No. DLWT01-010483/2024
SC No. 2220/2024
FIR No. 116/2020
PS: Patel Nagar
U/s. 307/34 IPC
In the matter of:
State (NCT of Delhi)
Versus
Amandeep Singh @ Mandeep Singh
S/o Kuljyot Singh
R/o E 216,
West Patel Nagar, Delhi
Presently at:
R/o H. No. O-22,
Second Floor, West Patel Nagar,
Delhi
Date of Institution : 05.12.2024
Date of reserving judgment : 27.11.2025
Date of Decision : 29.11.2025
Decision : Accused acquitted.
JUDGMENT
1. The accused namely Mandeep Singh @ Amandeep Singh @ Mannu has faced trial in the present case for the commission of the State v. Amandeep Singh FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 1 of 21 offence punishable under section 307 of the IPC.
Factual Background
2. The version of the prosecution is that, 2-3 days prior to 06.04.2010 the complainant had an altercation with the accused Mannu @ Amandeep Singh, as the complainant had asked the accused not to come to Faridpuri, where the complainant was residing, as the accused used to come there and consume smack, etc. On 06.04.2010 at around 02.30 pm the accused came near Gopal dairy and a quarrel ensued between the complainant and the accused and both of them started scuffling and they reached near 26 Block, Patel Nagar, Delhi. Thereafter, the accused stabbed the complainant with a knife in his abdomen, chest and hands. On hearing the commotion one Chandan Singh @ Davil, the friend of the complainant, came there and took the complainant to the hospital. The police were also informed.
3. The present FIR was registered on the statement of the complainant for the offences under sections 323/324/341 IPC. The accused was arrested on the identification of eye witness Chandan Singh @ Davil. The accused also got recovered the knife which he had used in the commission of the offence. The nature of injuries suffered by the complainant was opined as dangerous and accordingly section 307 IPC was added in the matter. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence under section 307 IPC.
State v. Amandeep Singh FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 2 of 21 Charge
4. On consideration of the entire material on record, charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under section 307 of the IPC, to which the accused pleaded not-guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
5. The prosecution led evidence and examined 6 witnesses in all to bring home the charges against the accused.
6. PW-1 Ajay deposed that one person namely Monu used to consume smack in his Gali/ lane; and after about 4-5 days of first Covid lock down in the year 2020, he requested Monu not to do so; and that thereafter, on the next day, at around 02:30 PM, after having his lunch, he came out of his house i.e. at Baba Faridpuri, where he saw Monu and Monu was staring at him and he objected to the same. PW-1 further deposed that thereafter, Monu started quarreling with him and in the process, they reached near 26 Block, Patel Nagar. PW-1 further deposed that thereafter, Monu stabbed him with a knife which was already in his possession; and thereafter, he lost consciousness and he regained consciousness at the hospital. PW-1 further deposed that Police had made inquiries from him and had obtained his thumb impression on one paper on which something was written.
7. PW-2 Sh. Chandan Singh @ Davil deposed that on State v. Amandeep Singh FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 3 of 21 06.04.2020 at around 02:00 PM, he came at his stall near Gopal Dairy, Water Tank, 22- Block, West Patel Nagar, Delhi from his home and he noticed some commotion at the chowk at Gopal Dairy; and that he saw that one Ajay who was residing in his neighborhood was having an altercation with one Sardar Ji; and he did not know the name of the said person/ Sardar Ji. The said two persons were quarreling and while quarreling they reached near Baveja Chemist at 26-Block, West Patel Nagar, Delhi. PW-2 further deposed that after some time, some public persons started running towards the place where he was standing and they were shouting "mar diya-mar diya". PW-2 further deposed that he had not seen the said incident himself but when he moved towards the exact spot where the said two persons were quarreling, he saw that Ajay was lying on the ground and he was having injury in his abdomen and he was bleeding. PW-2 further deposed that he picked up Ajay and with the help of one passerby who was on his motorcycle he took Ajay to Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Hospital. PW-2 further deposed that one Sonu who was also residing in his neighborhood had also accompanied them to the hospital and Sonu had informed the family members of Ajay. PW-2 further deposed that thereafter, Ajay was referred to RML Hospital and he came back home; and after around one year the Police had called him to PS Patel Nagar and had made inquiries from him regarding the incident.
8. PW-3 HC Heera Lal deposed that on 06.04.2020, he was posted at PS Patel Nagar as a Constable and on that day, he was on State v. Amandeep Singh FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 4 of 21 emergency duty alongwith ASI Virender Kumar and on that day, ASI Virender received DD no. 76A and accordingly, he along with ASI Virender Kumar reached at RML Hospital where injured Ajay was found under treatment. ASI Virender Kumar collected the MLC of injured Ajay from the concerned doctor. PW-3 further deposed that ASI Virender Kumar recorded the statement of injured Ajay in the present case and prepared Tehrir and handed over the said tehrir to him for registration of FIR and accordingly, he went to PS Patel Nagar and handed over the tehrir to the Duty Officer concerned for registration of FIR. PW-3 further deposed that after registration of FIR, he reached at the place of the incident i.e. 26-Block, Gopal Dairy, West Patel Nagar, Delhi and handed over a copy of the FIR and tehrir to IO ASI Virender Kumar. Eye witness Chandan was present there and he apprised about the entire incident to them and IO recorded the statement of eye witness Chandan u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, they returned to the PS and Chandan also accompanied them. IO called the accused namely Amandeep at the PS and when Amandeep Singh @ Mannu came to the PS, eye witness Chandan identified him as the assailant in the present case. Accordingly, IO arrested the accused Amandeep Singh and prepared the arrest memo of accused Amandeep Singh @ Mannu which is Ex. PW-3/A. IO interrogated the accused Amandeep Singh @ Mannu and recorded his diclosure statement which is Ex. PW-3/B. Thereafter, accused Amandeep Singh @ Mannu led them near the corner of the Block-26, West Patel Nagar, Delhi where vehicles used to be parked and produced one knife which he had hidden there. The blade and handle of the said knife were State v. Amandeep Singh FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 5 of 21 of silver colour. IO prepared the sketch of the said knife after taking its measurements and the sketch of the knife is Ex. PW-3/C. IO kept the said knife in a plastic jar, closed the same with doctor tape and sealed the same with the seal of SS and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/D. Thereafter, they returned to the PS and IO deposited the case property in the malkhana of the PS and the accused was lodged in the lock up. PW-3 identified the accused in the Court (through VC). PW-3 also identified the nail cutter with small knife Ex. P-1 as the one which was recovered at the instance of the accused. PW-3 further stated that site plan was also prepared by the IO at the instance of Chandan Singh and the said site plan is Ex. PW-3/D.
9. PW-4 ASI Virender Kumar deposed that on 06.04.2020, he was posted at PS Patel Nagar as ASI and on that day, he was on emergency duty along with Ct. Heera Lal and on that day, he received DD no. 76A and accordingly, he along with Ct. Heera Lal reached at RML Hospital where injured Ajay was found under treatment and he collected the MLC of injured Ajay from the concerned doctor. PW-4 further deposed that he recorded the statement of injured Ajay in the present case which is Ex. PW-1/A, prepared the tehrir on the basis of the statement of the injured which Ex. PW-4/A and handed over the said tehrir to Ct. Heera Lal for registration of FIR. PW-4 further deposed that accordingly, Ct. Heera Lal went to PS Patel Nagar and got the FIR registered and thereafter, he returned back at the place of the incident i.e. 26-Block, Gopal Dairy, West Patel Nagar, Delhi and handed over a copy State v. Amandeep Singh FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 6 of 21 of FIR and tehrir to him as he had already reached at the spot from RML Hospital. Eye witness Chandan @ Davil met them there and he apprised them about the entire incident. PW-4 further deposed that he recorded the statement of eye witness Chandan @ Davil u/s 161 Cr.P.C. PW-4 further deposed that he prepared the site plan at the instance of eye witness Chandan @ Davil which is Ex. PW-3/D. PW-4 further deposed that thereafter, he along with Ct. Heera Lal and eye witness Chandan @ Davil started searching for the accused in the present case but he could not find the accused and accordingly, he along with Ct. Heera Lal and Chandan @ Davil came to the PS. Accused Amandeep Singh @ Mannu also came to the PS and met him. When Amandeep Singh @ Mannu came to the PS, the eye witness Chandan identified him as the assailant in the present case. PW-4 further deposed that accordingly, he arrested the accused Amandeep Singh and prepared the arrest memo of accused Amandeep Singh @ Mannu which is Ex. PW-3/A and he interrogated the accused Amandeep Singh @ Mannu and recorded his disclosure statement which is Ex. PW-3/B. Thereafter, accused Amandeep Singh @ Mannu led them near the corner of the Block-26, West Patel Nagar, Delhi where vehicles used to be parked and produced one nail cutter with knife which he had produced from the road at the said parking place. The blade and handle of the said nail cutter with knife were of silver colour. PW-4 further deposed that he prepared the sketch of the said knife after taking its measurements and the sketch of the knife is Ex. PW-3/C; and he kept the said knife in a plastic jar, closed the same with doctor tape and sealed the same with the seal of SS and seized the same State v. Amandeep Singh FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 7 of 21 vide seizure memo Ex. PW-3/D and after use, the said seal was handed over to Ct. Heera Lal by him. Accused was released on Police Bail on the surety of father of the accused namely Sh. Kuljeet Singh. Thereafter, they returned to the PS and he deposited the case property in the malkhana of the PS. He recorded the statement of Ct. Heera Lal. PW-4 further deposed that he deposited the MLC of the injured Ajay in the MRD Section, RML Hospital for seeking opinion and on 11.01.2021, he collected the subsequent opinion from RML Hospital and the concerned doctor of RML hospital reported on the MLC of injured Ajay that the injury was dangerous in nature. Thereafter, he added Section 326 IPC in the charge sheet against the accused. Thereafter, he prepared the draft charge sheet and submitted the same in the Prosecution Branch, Delhi for scrutiny of the charge sheet. The Prosecution Branch had opined for adding Section 307 IPC against the accused as per the records and as per the facts and circumstances of the case. Thereafter, he collected the charge sheet from the Prosecution Branch and deposited the case file with MHCR of the PS as he was transferred. PW-4 identified the accused in the Court. PW-4 also identified the nail cutter with small knife Ex. P-1 in the Court.
10. PW-5 Insp. Rajkumar Singh deposed that on 05.04.2022, he was posted at PS Patel Nagar as SI and on that day, the investigation of the present case was marked to him by the then SHO PS Patel Nagar and he along with police staff conducted the search of accused Amandeep Singh in the present case but they could not find him and on 10.09.2022, State v. Amandeep Singh FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 8 of 21 he was transferred from PS Patel Nagar to PS Cyber Cell Central and he handed over the case file of the present case to the MHC(R) of the PS.
11. PW-6 SI Neeraj deposed that on 23.05.2023, he was posted at PS Patel Nagar as SI and on that day, the investigation of the present case was marked to him by the then SHO PS Patel Nagar and on the basis of the MLC, he added section 307 of the IPC against the accused in the present case. He conducted the search of the accused Amandeep Singh in the present case and after contacting his father, he got to know that the accused was already lodged in Tihar Jail in another case. After discussing the case with senior police officers and on completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet before the Court through his senior officers.
Statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C
12. 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 as he was previously involved in one more case.
Defence Evidence
13. The accused chose not to lead any evidence in support of his defence.
State v. Amandeep Singh FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 9 of 21
14. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as the Ld. Counsel for the accused Mandeep Singh @ Amandeep Singh @ Mannu and have given due consideration to their rival contentions and perused the record.
Appreciation, Analysis and Findings:
15. The version of the prosecution is that on 06.04.2020 at about 02:30 PM, near Gopal Dairy and 26 Block, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi, the accused repeatedly stabbed the victim Ajay with a knife in his abdomen, chest and on his hands, with such intention and knowledge that if by that act, death of victim Ajay was caused, the accused would be guilty of murder and as a result of the assault the victim Ajay suffered injuries which have been opined to be dangerous and the accused Amandeep thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC. The prosecution has therefore contended that the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence under section 307 IPC. On the other hand, the accused has denied the prosecution version and has stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
16. PW-1 Ajay, the injured/ complainant, has deposed that one person namely Monu used to consume smack in his Gali/ lane; and after about 4-5 days of first Covid lock down in the year 2020, he requested Monu not to do so; and that thereafter, on the next day, at around 02:30 PM, after having his lunch, he came out of his house i.e. at Baba Faridpuri, where he saw Monu, and Monu was staring at him and he State v. Amandeep Singh FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 10 of 21 objected to the same. PW-1 further deposed that thereafter, Monu started quarreling with him and in the process, they reached near 26 Block, Patel Nagar. PW-1 further deposed that thereafter, Monu stabbed him with a knife which was already in his possession; and thereafter, he lost consciousness and he regained consciousness at the hospital.
17. However, PW-1 Ajay, the injured/ complainant, did not identify the accused Mandeep Singh @ Amandeep Singh @ Mannu as the said Monu who was the assailant/ culprit and who had caused injuries to him with a knife on the day of the incident. He also did not identify the nail cutter with a small knife, Ex. P-1, which was purportedly recovered at the instance of the accused, as the weapon of offence.
18. PW-1 was cross examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, however he did not identify the accused as the culprit despite a specific suggestion being put to him even though the Ld. Addl. PP pointed out towards accused Mannu @ Amandeep Singh @ Mandeep Singh. PW-1 further denied the suggestion that accused Amandeep Singh @ Mannu @ Mandeep Singh had quarreled with him and thereafter, stabbed him on his abdomen, hands and chest with a knife on the day of the incident. He further denied the suggestion that he is deliberately not identifying the accused. PW-1 was confronted with his statement dated 06.04.2020 recorded by the IO; however, PW-1 stated that the police had obtained his thumb impression on this statement at the hospital, and he does not know the contents of the same. PW-1 also denied the suggestion that he State v. Amandeep Singh FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 11 of 21 is deliberately not identifying the accused as well as the case property/ knife as he has been won over by the accused. PW-1 was also cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused and he stated that Chander Singh @ David (the purported eye witness) is not his friend and he does not know him.
19. PW-2 Sh. Chandan Singh @ Davil, the purported eye witness of the incident deposed that on 06.04.2020 at around 02:00 PM, he came at his stall near Gopal Dairy, Water Tank, 22- Block, West Patel Nagar, Delhi from his home and he noticed some commotion at the chowk at Gopal Dairy; and that he saw that one Ajay who was residing in his neighborhood was having an altercation with one Sardar Ji; and he did not know the name of the said person/ Sardar Ji. The said two persons were quarreling and while quarreling they reached near Baveja Chemist at 26-Block, West Patel Nagar, Delhi. PW-2 further deposed that after some time, some public persons started running towards the place where he was standing and they were shouting "mar diya - mar diya". PW-2 further deposed that he had not seen the said incident himself but when he moved towards the exact spot where the said two persons were quarreling, he saw that Ajay was lying on the ground and he was having injury in his abdomen and he was bleeding. PW-2 further deposed that he picked up Ajay and with the help of one passerby who was on his motorcycle and he took Ajay to Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel Hospital. PW-2 further deposed that one Sonu who was also residing in his neighborhood had also accompanied them to the hospital and Sonu State v. Amandeep Singh FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 12 of 21 had informed the family members of Ajay. PW-2 further deposed that thereafter, Ajay was referred to RML Hospital and he came back home; and after around one year the Police had called him to PS Patel Nagar and had made inquiries from him regarding the incident.
20. PW-2 also stated he cannot identify the person who had caused injuries to Ajay as he had not seen the face of the said person. PW-2 was cross examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, however he did not identify the accused as the assailant who had caused injuries to Ajay on the day of the incident despite a specific suggestion being put to him after the Ld. Addl. PP pointed out towards accused Mannu @ Amandeep Singh @ Mandeep Singh. PW-2 denied the suggestion that he had stated to the Police that a quarrel had taken between his friend Ajay and Mannu @ Amandeep Singh and Mannu @ Amandeep Singh had taken out one knife from his pocket and had stabbed his friend Ajay on his chest and his hands. He denied the suggestion that the site plan was prepared in his presence. He further clarified that though the site plan Mark X bears his signatures, however, the same were obtained by the Police on a blank paper. He further denied the suggestion that the Police had apprehended and arrested Mannu @ Amandeep Singh at his instance. PW-2 further denied the suggestion that he is deliberately not identifying the accused and is deposing falsely as he has been won over by the accused. PW-2 further denied the suggestion that he is the eye witness of the incident and he is deliberately not revealing the true facts to save the accused.
State v. Amandeep Singh FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 13 of 21
21. Thus, it stands established that neither the victim (PW-1) nor the purported eye-witness (PW-2) has identified the accused, Mandeep Singh @ Amandeep Singh @ Mannu, as the individual who allegedly assaulted and stabbed the victim on the date of the incident. There is no other ocular testimony, nor is there any cogent or incriminating material on record, that connects the accused with the commission of the offence in question. No CCTV footage pertaining to the occurrence has been procured or placed on record. In the absence of any identification of the accused by both the victim and the alleged eye- witness, no evidentiary weight can be accorded to the testimonies of PW-4 (the Investigating Officer) and PW-3 (the police official accompanying the Investigating Officer), insofar as they claim that the eye-witness Chandan had identified the accused as the assailant at the police station, particularly when the said eye-witness has unequivocally repudiated this assertion. Furthermore, the victim himself has categorically denied that the accused was the perpetrator who inflicted the injuries upon him. There appears to be no plausible reason why the victim would allow the actual assailant to escape liability, were the accused indeed the true culprit. It is also an admitted position that no TIP was conducted during the course of investigation. A further discrepancy emerges with respect to the identity of the accused: as per his Aadhaar Card, his name is recorded as Mandeep Singh, whereas the charge-sheet refers to him as Amandeep Singh @ Mannu, and the victim, in his deposition, has named the culprit as "Monu," not "Mannu." PW-4 has also conceded that the name of the accused does not appear as the State v. Amandeep Singh FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 14 of 21 assailant in the victim's MLC. In view of the foregoing inconsistencies and omissions, a reasonable doubt arises as to whether the accused before the Court is, in fact, the individual who stabbed the victim on the day of the occurrence.
22. It further remains shrouded in ambiguity as to how the accused came to be present at the police station during the course of investigation. PW-3 has deposed that the IO purportedly conducted certain inquiries, during which he allegedly obtained the telephone number of the accused and contacted him. However, PW-3 simultaneously conceded that he is unaware of the manner in which the IO procured the said telephone number, or the precise mode by which the accused was contacted. PW-3 also expressed his inability to state the time at which the accused arrived at the police station. Conversely, the IO (PW-4), in his cross-examination, asserted that although he had indeed made inquiries, he had not been able to trace the telephone number of the accused. He further stated that he could not specify the time of the accused's arrival at the police station, but that upon his own return to the police station from the spot of the incident, the accused was already present there. Thus, the circumstances under which the accused reached the police station remain wholly unexplained and unexplored. The accused, for his part, has contended that he was apprehended by the police near a government school at Patel Nagar and thereafter taken to the police station.
23. Furthermore, the IO (PW-4) and PW-3, Constable Heera State v. Amandeep Singh FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 15 of 21 Lal, who had accompanied the IO, have deposed that the accused, Amandeep Singh @ Mannu, allegedly led them to the corner of Block-26, West Patel Nagar, Delhi, at a location where vehicles were ordinarily parked, and that he purportedly produced the alleged weapon of offence, namely a nail-cutter with a knife, which he is said to have retrieved from the road at the said parking area. However, both PW-3 and PW-4, in their cross-examination, have stated that they are unable to recall the registration number of any of the vehicles that were parked at the spot from where the knife was allegedly recovered. PW 3 further stated that he cannot specify the time at which the recovery was made. He also admitted that no public witness, apart from Chandan, was joined in the recovery proceedings. Similarly, PW-4, in his cross-examination, admitted that he did not prepare a site plan of the place of recovery of the knife. He reiterated that no public witness, apart from Chandan, had been associated with the recovery proceedings.
24. Be that as it may, neither the victim (PW-1) nor the purported eye-witness (PW-2) has identified the said nail-cutter with knife as the weapon used in the offence. Moreover, there is no independent witness who has corroborated the alleged recovery of the said knife at the instance of the accused. It is apparent that although the alleged recovery was effected from a public place, no independent public witness was joined in the proceedings, thereby rendering the recovery itself doubtful. Furthermore, given that the recovery was made from a public place accessible to all, no adverse inference can reasonably be State v. Amandeep Singh FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 16 of 21 drawn to establish that the said knife was, in fact, used by the accused in the commission of the offence.
25. 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....."
State v. Amandeep Singh FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 17 of 21
26. 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 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).
27. 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 State v. Amandeep Singh FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 18 of 21 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 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)...."
28. Adverting to the facts of the present case, PW-1 (the victim) and PW 2 (the purported eye witness) have not identified the accused State v. Amandeep Singh FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 19 of 21 Mandeep Singh @ Amandeep Singh @ Mannu as the assailant/ culprit. There is no other eye witness nor there is any other incriminating evidence on record which connects the accused Mandeep Singh @ Amandeep Singh @ Mannu with the crime. In the absence of the identification of the accused by the victim and the purported eye witness as the assailant, much weightage cannot be given to the testimonies of the PW4 (IO) and PW 3 (police official who accompanied the IO) to the effect that the eye witness Chandan had identified the accused as the culprit. Further the recovery of the nail cutter with knife at the instance of the accused is doubtful and even otherwise the said nail cutter with knife, Ex. P-1, has not been identified as the weapon of offence by the victim or by the eye witness. 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 Mandeep Singh @ Amandeep Singh @ Mannu for the offence punishable under section 307 of the IPC.
Conclusion:
29. 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 Mandeep Singh @ Amandeep Singh @ Mannu. The accused Mandeep Singh @ Amandeep Singh @ Mannu is accordingly acquitted for offence under section 307 IPC.
State v. Amandeep Singh FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 20 of 21
30. File be consigned to Record Room, after necessary compliance.
Digitally signed by SAURABH SAURABH KULSHRESHTHA
(Pronounced in the open court KULSHRESHTHA Date: 2025.11.29 17:58:18
+0530
on the 29.11.2025).
(Dr. Saurabh Kulshreshtha)
Additional Sessions Judge-03 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
State v. Amandeep Singh
FIR No. 116/2020; P.S. Patel Nagar Page No. 21 of 21