Delhi District Court
State vs Harish Singh on 3 September, 2025
In the Court of Ms. Isra Zaidi: JMFC-04, North East, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi.
State Vs. Harish Singh etc.
FIR No. 445/2006
U/sec.: 323/341/506/452/34 IPC
PS: Khajuri Khas
Date of institution of the case: 29.08.2008
Date for which Judgment is reserved: 01-09-2025
Date on which judgment is delivered: 03-09-2025
CNR No.DLNE02-000417-2008
JUDGMENT
a) Sr. No. of the case : 466276/2015
b) Date of commission of the offence : 14.10.2006
c) Name of the complainant : Kunal
S/o Chattar Singh
d) Name of the accused and his parentage : (1) Harish Singh
S/o Sh. Megraj Singh
(2) Rahul
S/o Sh. Rohtash
e) Offence complained of : Sections
323/341/506/452/34
IPC
Digitally
signed by
FIR NO. 445/2006 1 of 10
ISRA ISRA ZAIDI
Date: State vs. Harish Singh etc.
ZAIDI 2025.09.03
15:07:31
+0800
f) Offence charged of : Sections
323/341/452/506
Part-II/34 IPC
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Final order : Acquitted
i) Date of such order : 03/09/2025
Brief facts of the case
1. Succinctly stated the fact discernible from the present complaint are that on 14.10.2006 at about 11:00 am at H. No. C-66, Gali No.19, Khajuri Khas, Delhi, two persons, namely, Harish Singh and Rahul (hereinafter referred to as the accused persons) in furtherance of their common intention trespassed in the above mentioned house which was in possession of Chattar Singh. They voluntarily caused simple injuries to him and threatened to kill Kunal and Chattar Singh. Thereafter, present FIR was registered u/s 323/341/506/452/34 IPC against accused persons.
Court Proceedings
2. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under sections u/s 323/341/506/452/34 IPC was filed before the Court against both the accused persons. The then Learned Magistrate took cognizance on and consequently, the accused persons were summoned to face the trial. On their appearance in the Court, copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to them as per norms. Thereafter, vide order dated 19.08.2014, charges under sections u/s 323/341/452/506-II/34 IPC was framed by the then Learned MM Digitally signed FIR NO. 445/2006 2 of 10 ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date:
State vs. Harish Singh etc. 2025.09.03 ZAIDI 15:07:42 +0800 against accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was listed for PE.
3. In order to prove and substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined following witnesses.
Prosecution Witnesses S. No. Designation and Role in the present case name of witnesses
1. PW1 Kunal Complainant
2. PW2 Retd. ASI Ravi IO of the Case Karan Documents relied upon by the prosecution S. No. Exhibit/Mark Nature of documents
1. Ex. PW1/A Complaint
2. Ex. PW2/A Rukka
3. Ex. PW2/B Site plan
4. Ex.PW2/C, Arrest memos of accused persons Ex.PW2/D
5. Ex.PW2/E, Disclosure statements of accused Ex.PW2/F persons Statement of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C
4. The accused persons had admitted DD No.12A dated 15.10.06 as Ex.P1, FIR no.445/06 as Ex.P2, DD No.9A dated 14.10.06 as Ex.P3, MLC bearing no.4094/06 as Ex.P4, MLC bearing no.4404/06 as Ex.P5, X-ray report of Kunal as Ex.P6 and Personal Search Memo as Ex.P7 respectively under Section 294 Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: ZAIDI 2025.09.03 15:07:51 +0800 FIR NO. 445/2006 3 of 10 State vs. Harish Singh etc. Cr.PC, but denied its contents and hence the examination of the witnesses were dispensed with.
Statement of the Accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C
5. Statement of accused Harish Singh and Rahul were recorded wherein accused Rahul stated that the witnesses are interested witnesses. He was not present on the spot on that day. He stated that he came to know after many days that a case was registered against him. He further stated that the father in-law of Harish's sister had a scuffle with Harish and his name was added later on. They stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are innocent.
Evidence of the Defence
6. No defence evidence was lead by the defence despite granting them an opportunity.
Final Arguments
7. The Court heard final arguments on behalf of the both the parties on 01/09/2025. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons submitted that the case against the accused persons is false and frivolous and has prayed that accused persons be acquitted of the offences charged. Learned APP for the State submitted that both accused persons be convicted of the offences under the above-mentioned sections as there is sufficient evidence on record to convict the accused persons. This Court has heard the submissions of Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsels for the accused persons. The Court has also diligently gone through the charge-sheet, documents, evidence recorded and the entire material on record.
ISRA Digitally signed
by ISRA ZAIDI
Date: 2025.09.03
ZAIDI 15:08:05 +0800
FIR NO. 445/2006 4 of 10 State vs. Harish Singh etc.
Brief reasons for the just decision of the case
8. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution had to prove the following ingredients of the said Section 323/341/452/506 Part- II/34 IPC against accused.
323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt- "Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
341. Punishment for wrongful restraint- "Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
452. Punishment for house-trespass - "Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting and person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine".
506 Part-II. Punishment for criminal intimidation -
"Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both"
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc -- and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, of with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
9. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence ISRA Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2025.09.03 ZAIDI 15:08:14 +0800 FIR NO. 445/2006 5 of 10 State vs. Harish Singh etc. of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
10. PW1 deposed in his examination in chief that on 10/04/2006, he was present at his house and in the afternoon two persons, namely, Harish & Rahul came to his house and entered into his house and they had beaten him and his father. During his examination in chief, the said witness has failed to identify both the accused persons. As the said witness was resiling from his previous statement, therefore, ld. APP for State sought permission to cross-examine the said witness and during his cross-examination, he testified that his statement might has been recorded at his house. He further testified that on the day of incident i.e. 14.10.2006, he was studying in 6 th standard. He further testified that his brother, namely, Vipin had gone to take food from the hotel and when he was about to close the door, in the meantime Pradeep (brother in law of his brother, namely, Achal) and his two associates entered into his house. He further testified that he did not remember whether they had asked him about his father and when he called his father, they had attacked him and closed him inside a room and they had beaten them. PW1 was not cross-examined by Ld. defence counsels despite opportunity.
11. PW2 deposed in his examination in chief that on 14/10/2006, he was posted at PS Khajuri Khas as ASI and on that day, he was on emergency duty and his duty hours were from 08.00 am - 08.00 pm. He further deposed that at about 11.00 am, he received one DD entry No.9A regarding an altercation. He further deposed that he reached at the spot i.e. C-66, Gali no. 19, Khajuri Khas. He further deposed that there he came to know that the injured was taken to the ISRA Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2025.09.03 ZAIDI 15:08:25 +0800 FIR NO. 445/2006 6 of 10 State vs. Harish Singh etc. hospital. He further deposed that he reached GTB hospital and received the MLC of the injured. He further deposed that the injured/ complainant submitted that he was not fit to give statement and thereafter, he reached at PS. He further deposed that next day, injured person, namely, Master Kunal alongwith his father came to PS and he recorded the statement of Kunal. During his cross- examination, he testified that he met public persons there and he came to know through them that the incident took place within the four walls of that house. He further admitted that the complainant had not given the name of accused Rahul in his complaint. He further testified that he reached at the spot within half an hour. He further testified that he did not meet Rahul at the spot at any point of time. He further testified that he collected the MLC of Chhatar Singh also.
12. PW1 does not appear to be credit worthy. He has resiled from his previous statement. It is no longer res integra that sole testimony of complainant can be relied upon to convict an accused provided the same is reliable and credit-worthy. In the case of Lallu Manjhi and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand (2003) 2 SCC 401 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had classified oral testimony of witnesses into three categories wholly reliable, wholly unreliable and neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
13. At this stage it is pertinent to note that the case of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (2012)8 SCC the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had the attributes of a sterling witness.
"The court held to test the quality of such a witness the status of a witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant would-be truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be relevant would-be consistency of the statement Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: ZAIDI 2025.09.03 15:08:34 +0800 FIR NO. 445/2006 7 of 10 State vs. Harish Singh etc. right from the starting point till the end, namely at the time when witness made the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It must be natural and consistent with the case of prosecution qua the accused. There must not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the test of cross examination of any length howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give any room for any doubt as to the factum of occurrence, the persons involved and the sequence of it..."
14. PW1 was not consistent while deposing before the Court. Hence, due to his vacillating deposition before the Court his testimony is not reliable. PW1 was an eye witness to the incident. PW1, the prime witness could not identify accused.
15. Prosecution has only examined the IO of the present case but his testimony could not be corroborated either by the complainant or by any public witness. It is also not the case of the prosecution that IO was an eye witness in the present case. The entire prosecution case hinged upon the statement of PW/complainant, who could not be examined. The mere testimony of IO is insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. The alleged incident neither took place in presence of the IO nor it is the case of the prosecution.
16. In every criminal trial, the identity of the malefactor must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, the first duty of the prosecution is not to prove the crime but to prove the identity of the offender, for even if the commission of the crime can be established, there can be no conviction without proof of identity of the offender beyond reasonable doubt.
17. Onus is, thus, on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person facing the trial is, in fact, the same person, who committed the of Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: ZAIDI 2025.09.03 15:08:42 +0800 FIR NO. 445/2006 8 of 10 State vs. Harish Singh etc. fence.
18. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with the identity of the accused in the case of Ashraf vs State held as under:-
"....However, in case a witness is completely hostile with re- gard to identity of the accused even in his examination-in- chief and nothing could be elicited from him to show the in- volvement of the accused in the offence in the cross-examina- tion by the APP, such a testimony cannot be accepted and made the basis of the conviction....."
19. Rest witnesses are formal in nature and the guilt of the accused cannot be established from his testimonies, inasmuch as, the alleged incident neither took place in their presence nor it is the case of the prosecution.
20. It is an adage that law works on the wheels of evidence. Every criminal trial is a journey of discovering and unfolding the truth. But in the present case no sufficient evidence is there on record to warrant the conviction of the accused person. In the case of Prem Singh Yadav Vs. CBI 178 (2011) DLT 529 it was held that where it is possible to have both views one in favor of prosecution and one in favor of accused, the later one should prevail. The prosecution could not prove by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The burden never shifts. An accused enjoys the presumption of innocence. There is no duty on an accused person to purge himself of guilt. Where there is a lingering doubt, the accused person is given the benefit of the doubt.
ISRA Digitally signed
by ISRA ZAIDI
Date: 2025.09.03
ZAIDI 15:08:49 +0800
FIR NO. 445/2006 9 of 10 State vs. Harish Singh etc.
21. Therefore, keeping in view the overall conspectus of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to discharge the burden imposed on it by law of satisfying this Court beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. Therefore, this Court give benefit of doubt to the accused persons.
22. Accused persons, namely, Harish Singh and Rahul are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 323/341/452/506-II/34 IPC.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance. This judgment contains 10 pages and each page bears my signature. Announced in the open Court today i.e 03-09-2025.
Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI
Date:
ZAIDI 2025.09.03
15:08:59 +0800
(Isra Zaidi)
JMFC-04/NE/KKD/Delhi/03.09.2025
FIR NO. 445/2006 10 of 10 State vs. Harish Singh etc.