Delhi District Court
State vs Manoj on 10 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. KUMAR RAJAT,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-07, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
CNR No. DLSH01-004231-2022
SC No. 226/2022
FIR No. 242/2017
PS Jyoti Nagar
U/s 308/342/34 IPC
State
Vs.
Manoj,
S/o Sh. Mahender Singh,
R/o D-1119, Gali No. 7. Chappal Market,
Ashok Nagar, Delhi.
........ Accused
Date of Institution of case 27.06.2022
Date of case reserved for Judgment 04.01.2025
Judgment Pronounced on 10.01.2025
Decision Acquitted u/s 308/341/34
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. As per the case of prosecution, DD No. 89B was received on 10.07.2017 and the IO along with Ct. Sarnam reached the spot at Gali No. 7, Chappal Market, Ashok Nagar, Delhi and injured was already shifted to GTB Hospital.
State Vs. Manoj FIR No. 242/2017 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 1 of 19Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2025.01.10 14:44:44 +0530 Injured/complainant Dheeraj alleged that he was working as driver and on 10.07.2017 at about 7 PM, he was going towards Meet Nagar from his house at Ashok Nagar on his bike TVS Apache bearing no. DL5S BA0330 and when he reached Gali No. 7, Chappal Market near Jai Holy Child School, three persons were standing in the nearby gali, due to them it was difficult for the persons to commute in the gali and one of those persons was wearing sky blue T-shirt and complainant asked for side to proceed further, then all of them wrongfully restrained him and said T-shirt person hit danda on his back and the danda was broken and its parts fell on two sides and their intention was not good when complainant tried to leave that place, all three of them again wrongfully restrained him and that person wearing sky blue colour T-shirt namely Manoj hit danda on his head and other person hit danda near his right ear, which led to bleeding and in the meanwhile, his brother-in-law (sala) Vikas reached the spot and called at 100 number.
2. On the above complaint of the complainant, the FIR was registered vide FIR No. 242/2017, dt. 10.07.2017 in PS Jyoti Nagar u/s 308/341/34 IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed u/s 308/341/34 IPC against the accused Manoj and after filing of charge-sheet, cognizance of offences was taken against the accused.
CHARGE
3. Charge for the offences punishable u/s 308/341/34 IPC was framed against accused Manoj by Ld. Predecessor on 02.07.2022. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs. Manoj FIR No. 242/2017 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 2 of 19 Digitally signedKUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 2025.01.10 Date:
14:44:49 +0530 ADMISSION/DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
4. Admission/denial of documents u/s 294 Cr.PC was conducted on 07.10.2024. Accused admitted the following document:
(a) DD No. 89B dated 10.07.2017, Ex.PA1.
In view of above-said admission, the requirement of evidence of following witness was dispensed with :
(a) Ct. Manish (mentioned at Sl. No. 8 in the list of witnesses).
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. Prosecution examined Seven (07) witnesses in its favour to prove the case.
6. PW1 Retd. ASI Ram Snehi deposed that on 10.07.2017, he was working as Duty Officer at PS Jyoti Nagar from 04:00 pm to 12:00 midnight. On that day, at about 08:45 PM, he received a rukka from Ct. Sarnam Singh, which was sent by SI Amrender Singh and on its basis, he got recorded present case FIR and also made endorsement on the rukka, Ex.PW1/B. He had brought the original FIR register, Ex.PW1/A (OSR). PW1 also issued certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act, Ex.PW1/C. After registration of FIR, he handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct. Sarnam Singh.
7. PW2 Dheeraj Kumar deposed that he was working as bus driver. On 10.07.2017, at about 07:00 pm, he was returning to his house from Meet Nagar on his bike TVS Apache bearing no. DL5SBA0330 when he reached at Gali No. 7, Chappal Market, he saw that three boys/persons were standing in the State Vs. Manoj FIR No. 242/2017 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 3 of 19 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 2025.01.10 Date:
14:44:56 +0530 street before Jai Holy Child School. Due to the fact that they were standing in the street, it was difficult to pass through the street. PW2 asked those boys to give the way, but they restrained his way. One of them hit a danda on his back due to which the danda had broken down and one part fell down on the right side of his bike and other remained in the hand of that boy, who was wearing sky blue T-shirt.
8. PW2 further deposed that he tried to run away from there on seeing their evil intentions, but above said three boys restrained/stopped his way and the person wearing sky blue T- shirt again hit the danda on his head and one other person/boy hit the danda near his right ear. Blood started oozing out and his brother-in-law Vikas also reached there, who saved him from above said three persons. Those persons fled away from the spot. Vikas took him to GTB Hospital where he received treatment. IO reached GTB Hospital and recorded his statement. PW2 had correctly identified his signature on his statement, Ex.PW2/A.
9. PW3 Vikas deposed that in the year 2017, he was doing a private job and one day in 2017, he was returning to his house from his job. At about 07:15 pm, when he reached Gali no. 7, Chappal Market and moved ahead of Jai Holy Child School, he saw that his brother-in-law Dheeraj was injured and blood was oozing out of his head and PW3 saved his brother-in-law and called 100 number from his phone. He took Dheeraj to GTB Hospital and when he reached at the spot, no one was present there except Dheeraj.
10. PW4 HC Sarnam Singh deposed that on 27.07.2017, State Vs. Manoj FIR No. 242/2017 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 4 of 19 Digitally signed KUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date: 2025.01.10 14:45:02 +0530 he was posted as Constable at PS Jyoti Nagar. On that day, on receipt of information of quarrel, he along with SI Amrender Singh reached at Gali No. 7, near Chappal Market, Ashok Nagar, Delhi, where they came to know that injured had been taken to GTB Hospital by PCR. Thereafter, they reached there. SI Amrender Singh had collected the MLC of injured, recorded his statement, prepared the rukka on the statement of injured and handed over the same to PW4 for registration of FIR. PW4 took the rukka and handed over the same to Duty Officer at PS Jyoti Nagar. After registration of FIR, he returned to hospital along with copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to SI Amrender Singh.
11. PW4 further deposed that he along with injured and SI Amrender Singh had gone to Chappal Market, Ashok Nagar, where injured had identified accused Manoj, who had caused injuries to him with danda at the time of incident. Accused Manoj was apprehended by them and he was arrested vide arrest memo, Ex.PW2/C, personally searched vide memo, Ex.PW2/D and his disclosure statement, Ex.PW2/E was recorded by IO/SI Amrender Singh. Thereafter, accused Manoj led them at the spot and complainant Dheeraj had identified the spot of incident where the incident took place.
12. PW4 further deposed that at the instance of accused Manoj, one danda was got recovered from Gali No. 7, Chappal Market, Ashok Nagar, Delhi, whose length was 74 cm and PW4 was not confirmed with what material the said danda was made. The danda was kept in a parcel and sealed with the seal of RK.
State Vs. Manoj FIR No. 242/2017 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 5 of 19 Digitally signed by KUMARKUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.01.10 14:45:07 +0530 IO seized the recovered danda vide seizure memo, Ex.PW2/G and also prepared the site plan, Ex.PW2/B at the instance of complainant/victim Dheeraj and thereafter, they returned to the PS along with accused Manoj.
13. PW4 further deposed that victim Dheeraj produced to the IO, his wearing clothes i.e. pant, t-shirt and gamcha and the same were sealed with the seal of 'RK' by the IO and then seized vide seizure memo, Ex.PW2/F. PW4 had correctly identified the wooden danda, Ex.P1, one pant (grey colour), one T-shirt (blue colour) upon which photo of John Cena and one gamcha (white colour with black and yellow border), Ex.P2 (colly). PW4 had correctly identified accused Manoj in the court.
14. PW5 Dr. Irshad Alam deposed that he was working in GTB Hospital since March 2015. On 10.07.2017, he was working as CMO at GTB Hospital in A & E Casualty, on that day at about 08:10 pm, one patient Dheeraj was brought to the casualty, who was examined by Dr. Somesh (JR), working under his supervision and control. PW5 was acquainted with the handwriting of Dr. Somesh and Dr. Himanshu, Department of Neuro Surgery as he had worked with them and also received documents/letters signed and written by them during the discharge of official duty.
15. PW5 further deposed that the detailed examination of above said patient on the MLC bearing no. C-5130/27/17 mentioned in the handwriting of Dr. Somesh from point A to A1, Ex.PW5/A. The patient had following injuries as above mentioned from point A to A1 i.e. lacerated wound vertically State Vs. Manoj FIR No. 242/2017 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 6 of 19 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.01.10 14:45:12 +0530 upper left side front region (measuring 6 x .5 cm). As per the handwriting of Dr. Himanshu, he had opined on the above said MLC from point D to D1 that "as per NS record, the nature of injury is simple".
16. PW5A ASI Mahesh Kumar deposed that on 17.08.2019, he was posted as ASI at PS Jyoti Nagar and on that day, further investigation of the present case was marked to him. He searched for co-accused Monty and other co-accused, but no clue could be found regarding them. PW5A prepared the charge- sheet against accused Manoj and submitted it before the Hon'ble Court.
17. PW6 SI Amrendra Singh deposed that on 10.07.2017, he was posted as SI at PS Jyoti Nagar and on that day, on receiving DD No. 89B, he along with Ct. Sarnam went to the spot i.e. Gali No. 7, Chappal Market, Ashok Nagar, Delhi where he came to know that injured had already been taken to GTB Hospital. They went to the hospital and PW6 collected the MLC of injured Dheeraj and recorded his statement, Ex.PW2/A. PW6 prepared the rukka, Ex.PW6/A and handed over to Ct. Sarnam for registration of FIR. Thereafter, PW6 along with injured Dheeraj returned to the spot. In the meantime, Ct. Sarnam returned to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to PW6.
18. PW6 further deposed that he prepared the site plan, Ex.PW2/B at the instance of complainant. PW6 along with Ct. Sarnam and Dheeraj went to the house of accused Manoj i.e. D-1119, Gali No. 7, near Chappal Market, Ashok Nagar and he State Vs. Manoj FIR No. 242/2017 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 7 of 19 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT Date:
RAJAT 2025.01.10 14:45:16 was apprehended at the instance of injured Dheeraj. Accused Manoj was arrested vide arrest memo, Ex.PW2/C and his personal search was also conducted vide memo, Ex.PW2/D. Disclosure statement of accused Manoj was also recorded by PW6 vide statement, Ex.PW2/E. Thereafter, he got recovered one danda from the street i.e. Gali No. 7, Chappal Market, Ashok Nagar, Delhi and PW6 sealed the same with the seal of 'RK' and then seized it vide seizure memo, Ex.PW2/G. Victim Dheeraj handed over his wearing clothes, which he was wearing at the time of incident and same were sealed vide seal of 'RK' and then seized vide seizure memo, Ex.PW2/F.
19. PW6 further deposed that he recorded the statement of Ct. Sarnam, injured Dheeraj and one public witness Vikas and deposited the above said case property in the malkhana. PW6 made efforts to arrest the co-accused Monty, but in vain. In the month of December 2018, he collected the final opinion on the MLC of injured Dheeraj from GTB Hospital.
20. PW6 further deposed that he had correctly identified one wooden danda, Ex.P1, which was seized by him, vide seizure memo, Ex.PW2/G and used by accused Manoj in the commission of offence. PW6 had correctly identified one pant (grey colour), one T-shirt (blue colour upon which photo of John Cena is pasted), one gamchha (white colour with black and yellow borders), Ex.P2 (colly), which were seized by him vide memo, Ex.PW2/F and produced by victim Dheeraj to him. PW6 had correctly identified accused Manoj in the court.
State Vs. Manoj FIR No. 242/2017 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 8 of 19 Digitally signed by KUMARKUMAR RAJAT Date:
RAJAT 2025.01.10 14:45:22 +0530 STATEMENT OF ACCUSED u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
21. Statement of accused Manoj was recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC on 06.12.2024 and he denied the incriminating evidence put to him. He stated that the all witnesses are interested witnesses and he was falsely implicated by the police officials in the present case without any fault on his part and he is innocent person and praying for acquittal as he was falsely implicated in the present case.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE, ANALYSIS OF WITNESSES AND FINDING ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED
22. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that he had been falsely implicated by the police under some misconception. PW2/complainant Dheeraj had not identified the accused as the assailant and even another PW3 Vikas has also not identified the accused as the assailant, who had caused injury to PW2 with danda on his head along with his associates and there is no other accused in the present case. There are contradictions, improvements and omissions in the testimony of PW2 and the evidence of police witnesses is not material as accused has not been identified as assailant by the complainant. The injury opined is simple in nature and even the same is not caused by the accused and he is not named in the MLC. Thus, prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
State Vs. Manoj FIR No. 242/2017 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 9 of 19 Digitally signed by KUMARKUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.01.10 14:45:27 +0530 ARGUMENTS OF LD. ADDL. PP FOR THE STATE
23. Ld. APP for State has argued that prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and that accused Manoj along with his associates had caused injuries to complainant Dheeraj with danda, who had correctly identified his signature on his statement/complaint, Ex.PW2/A on which FIR was registered and correctly deposed that he was hit by one person bearing sky blue T-shirt on his head by a danda and he was saved by his brother-in-law Vikas after he was bleeding. PW3 Vikas has also stated the correct date, time and place of the occurrence and that after the complainant got injured, he took him to GTB Hospital for treatment. Police witnesses have also proved the arrest of accused at the instance of complainant and that he was the person, who caused injuries to him with danda and his disclosure statement, Ex.PW2/E was proved by PW4 and PW6 and accused got recovered the said danda, Ex.P1 from gali No. 7, Chappal Market and the danda was correctly identified by PW4 and PW6. As per MLC, the injury opined is simple in nature and there was a lacerated wound, which corroborates the version of prosecution. The site plan is also proved by the prosecution witnesses.
24. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the records.
25. The charge against accused person is u/s 308/341/34 IPC.
State Vs. Manoj FIR No. 242/2017 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 10 of 19 Digitally signedKUMAR by KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT 14:45:32 Date: 2025.01.10 +0530
308. Attempt to commit culpable homicide-
"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."
340. Wrongful Confinement.- Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine' that person.
26. The material witness of the prosecution is PW2 Dheeraj Kumar, who is eye witness and the victim.
27. The present FIR was registered on the complaint of Dheeraj, who alleged that on 10.07.2017 at about 7 PM, he was going towards Meet Nagar from his house at Ashok Nagar on his bike TVS Apache bearing no. DL5S BA0330 and when he reached Gali No. 7, Chappal Market near Jai Holy Child School, three persons were standing in the nearby gali, who wrongfully restrained him and the accused, who was wearing sky blue T- shirt, hit danda on his back and the danda was broken and its parts fell on two sides and their intention was not good and when complainant tried to leave that place, then all three of them again wrongfully restrained him and accused Manoj hit danda on his head and other person hit danda near his right ear, which led to bleeding and his brother-in-law (sala) Vikas reached the spot.
State Vs. Manoj FIR No. 242/2017 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 11 of 19Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.01.10 14:45:37 +0530
28. Complainant Dheeraj Kumar was examined as PW2, who has deposed that on10.07.2017 at 7 PM, he was returning to his house from Meet Nagar on his bike TVS Apache bearing no. DL5S BA0330 and when he reached Chappal Market, three persons wrongfully restrained him near Jai Holy Child School and when he asked those boys to give way, one of them hit danda on his back and it was broken into two pieces, one part fell on the right side of bike and other remained on the hand of that boy wearing sky blue T-shirt and that person again hit danda on his head and his associate hit danda on his right ear, which led to bleeding.
29. PW2 has made improvement in his testimony as in his statement, Ex.PW2/A he had stated that he was going towards Meet Nagar from his house and in his deposition, he stated that he was returning to his house from Meet Nagar, which are contrary statements. In his statement, Ex.PW2/A, the complainant stated that the accused, who had hit him with danda and wearing sky blue T-shirt, was accused Manoj, but in his testimony before the Court, he deposed that he cannot identify the said three persons as he could not see their faces at the time of incident. PW2 has only identified his signature on Ex.PW2/A and volunteered that police official had took his signature on some blank papers and he has not deposed, if the contents of Ex.PW2/A were stated by him to the police or not.
30. PW2 was declared hostile and cross-examined by Ld. APP and even after the accused being shown to him and leading questions were asked by Ld. APP that accused Manoj had hit him State Vs. Manoj FIR No. 242/2017 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 12 of 19 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.01.10 14:45:42 +0530 with danda on his head and back and he was wearing sky blue colour T-shirt, PW2 failed to identify the accused as the assailant. PW2 volunteered that the persons, who had beaten and wrongfully restrained him were never apprehended by police and he did not know how accused Manoj was implicated in this case.
31. PW2 denied the suggestion that he was won over by the accused and also denied that he had stated the name of accused in his statement, Ex.PW2/A and identified him as the person, who was wearing sky blue T-shirt. Further, PW2 denied the contents of Ex.PW2/A even after he was confronted with the same. Thus, the contents of statement/complaint, Ex.PW2/A on which FIR was registered could not be proved from the testimony of PW2 and consequently the contents of FIR, Ex.PW1/A which are based on said complaint are also not proved.
32. PW2 also denied that site plan, Ex.PW2/B was prepared at his instance or that accused was arrested from his house at Chappal Market, Ashok Nagar, Delhi on his identification. PW2 stated that police obtained his signatures on blank papers and denied handing over his cloths including T-shirt with picture of John Cena and that it was seized by the IO vide memo, Ex.PW2/F. PW2 also denied the suggestion that accused produced one danda to IO in his presence from his house and did not identify the said danda as the one, which was sealed and seized by the IO vide memo, Ex.PW2/G and he also denied the contents of his statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C., Mark X even after he was confronted with the same.
State Vs. Manoj FIR No. 242/2017 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 13 of 19Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.01.10 14:45:47 +0530 PW2 has categorically stated to Court question that he had no pressure or inducement to depose in Court and PW2 failed to identify the said danda or his cloths i.e. grey pant, blue T-shrit and one Gamcha.
33. PW2 has made material improvements and omissions in his testimony and he has not supported the case of prosecution at all as he is completely hostile as he neither identified accused, nor the danda used in the crime and also did not identify his cloths and nothing has come in his cross-examination by Ld. APP.
34. Another public witness is PW3 Vikas, who is brother- in-law of PW2 and he deposed that in 2017 at 7.15 PM, when he reached Gali No. 7, Chappal Market near Jai Holy Child School, he saw PW2 injured and he was bleeding. He called 100 number. PW3 did not see any assailant at the spot nor he was an eye witness to the incident and thus, he has not identified accused Manoj as the assailant, who caused injury to PW2 Dheeraj.
35. PW3 has not supported the case of prosecution and was declared hostile and even in the cross-examination of Ld. APP, he failed to identify the accused, who caused injury to PW2 and denied that he took Dheeraj to GTB Hospital, who disclosed that accused Manoj was wearing sky blue T-shirt and he had hit PW2 on his head with danda and also denied that IO took Dheeraj to the spot. PW3 denied the contents of his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C., Mark Y even after he was confronted with the same.
Thus, none of the public witnesses i.e. PW2 and PW3 has supported the case of prosecution at all.
State Vs. Manoj FIR No. 242/2017 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 14 of 19Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT Date:
RAJAT 2025.01.10 14:45:51 +0530
36. PW1 is a formal witness, who proved the recording of FIR, Ex.PW1/A, but the contents of the same are not proved, considering the testimony of PW2 and PW3.
37. PW4 deposed that on 27.07.2017, he along with SI Amrender reached the spot at Gali No. 7, Chappal Market, Ashok Nagar, Delhi and IO PW6 has collected the MLC of injured from GTB Hospital and prepared rukka on his statement and PW4 took rukka and got registered the FIR and returned them to IO and PW2 identified accused Manoj as the person, who caused injury to him with danda, but since PW2 has failed to identify accused Manoj, the testimony of PW4 is inconsequential.
38. PW4 and PW6 deposed that disclosure statement of the accused, Ex.PW2/E was recorded by IO/PW6, but PW2 has denied that said disclosure was recorded in his presence and otherwise also the disclosure is not admissible in evidence in view of the embargo u/s 25 & 26 Indian Evidence Act. PW4 and PW6 deposed regarding recovery of danda at the instance of accused and that site plan was prepared at the instance of complainant Dheeraj, but PW2 Dheeraj has denied these facts, which makes recovery and site plan doubtful and PW4 has also deposed that complainant Dheeraj produced his cloths to IO, which were seized, but complainant denied the same, which makes the seizure doubtful as even PW2 failed to identify the said cloths, Ex.P2.
39. PW5A ASI Mahesh Kumar is a formal witness, who filed the charge-sheet. PW6 proved the receipt of DD No. 89B, Ex.PA1, but it was the initial information vide which, it is only State Vs. Manoj FIR No. 242/2017 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 15 of 19 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2025.01.10 14:45:56 recorded that there was a quarrel at Gali No. 7, Chappal Market, Ashok Nagar, Delhi. PW6 proved the rukka, Ex.PW6/A, but PW2 has disowned the contents of FIR and his complaint. PW6 deposed that accused Manoj was apprehended at the instance of Dheeraj, but the same is denied by PW2 Dheeraj. PW6 deposed about recovery of danda at the instance of accused, but he has not made any independent witness to the said recovery and same is admitted in his cross-examination and coupled with the testimony of PW2, the recovery of danda is doubtful. As per PW6, co-accused Monty could not be arrested and even the third assailant could not be identified by the police. In cross- examination, PW6 admitted that broken piece of seized danda could not be recovered and he had not sent the seized danda and cloths to FSL, which further creates doubt on prosecution case.
40. PW5 Dr. Irshad Alam proved the MLC of injured Dheeraj, Ex.PW5/A vide which there was a lacerated wound of 6x.5 on upper left side region and injury opined is simple in nature, but, this medical opinion has no value as the accused has not been identified by either of these public witnesses.
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
41. Accused Manoj denied the incriminating evidence put to him in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC and he stated that he was falsely implicated by the police officials in the present case without any fault on his part.
42. Since, the prosecution has not brought the foundational facts against the accused as the public witnesses/eye witness/victim have failed to identify the accused and his defence State Vs. Manoj FIR No. 242/2017 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 16 of 19 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2025.01.10 14:46:02 +0530 will come into picture only if the identity of assailant is established during trial and prosecution has brought on record the foundational facts, but in this case, none of these could be established by the prosecution as complainant PW2 Dheeraj and PW3 Vikas failed to identify the accused, danda used in the crime, Ex.P1, cloths of PW2, Ex.P2 and recovery of danda is also not proved as per law by the prosecution and co-accused could not be found by police.
43. In Kailash Gour and Ors. Vs. State of Assam reported in MANU/SC/1505/2011, Apex Court has observed that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is a principle that cannot be sacrificed on the altar or inefficiency, inadequacy or inept handling of the investigation by the police.
The benefit arising from any such faulty investigation ought to go to the accused and not to the prosecution.
44. In Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka, dt. 13.10.2022, in Crl. Appeal No. 242/2022, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that it is settled principle of law that when two views are possible from the prosecution evidence, the one which is favourable to the accused shall have to be taken and the benefit of doubt shall have to be given to the accused.
45. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon the prosecution and 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 accused, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused. Reference may be made to the State Vs. Manoj FIR No. 242/2017 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 17 of 19 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR Date:
RAJAT RAJAT 2025.01.10 14:46:08 +0530 Judgments titled as 'Nallapati Sivaiah Vs. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur', reported as VIII (2007) SLT 454 (SC) in this respect. Reference may also be made to the Judgment titled as 'Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya Vs. State of Rajasthan', reported as (2013) 5 SCC 722, wherein it was held that 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 and 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 persons.
46. Prosecution could not prove that the accused had caused any injury to the complainant/victim or wrongfully restrained PW2 Dheeraj in furtherance of common intention with his associates. and thus, accused is not liable for the offences u/s 308/341/34 IPC.
47. Testimony of PW2 does not inspire confidence and despite efforts by prosecution, PW2 and PW3 failed to identify accused during trial and they also turned hostile and nothing fruitful came in their cross-examination by Ld. APP against the accused. The PW2 and PW3 have made material omissions, improvements, variations and contradictions in their testimonies and their testimonies are at variance with the testimonies of police witnesses, which makes them further, unreliable witnesses, more so when they failed to identify the accused despite him being shown to them during the trial. Thus, accused is entitled to State Vs. Manoj FIR No. 242/2017 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 18 of 19 Digitally signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT RAJAT Date:
2025.01.10 14:46:12 +0530 benefit of doubt qua offence u/s 308/341/34 IPC.
CONCLUSION
48. In the totality of the circumstances brought on record by way of evidence, it is observed that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Manoj qua offences punishable u/s 308/341/34 IPC, thus, a benefit of doubt is given to the accused on the basis of above- noted principles and facts established on record.
49. Consequently, the accused Manoj is acquitted of the offences u/s 308/341/34 IPC.
50. The Bond u/s 481 BNSS Cr.P.C. in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one Surety of like amount furnished by the accused on 04.01.2025, shall remain in force for a period of six months. Surety stands discharged.
File be consigned to Record Room after necessary Digitally compliance. signed by KUMAR KUMAR RAJAT PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT RAJAT Date:
ON THIS 10th DAY of JANUARY, 2025. 2025.01.10 14:46:18 +0530 (KUMAR RAJAT) ASJ-07/SHD/KKD Court/Delhi 10.01.2025 State Vs. Manoj FIR No. 242/2017 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 19 of 19