Delhi District Court
State vs Bhuran Sheikh on 4 April, 2026
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022.
CNR No. : DLSE01-004144-2022.
State
versus
1. Mr. Bhuran Sheikh
Son of Mr. Khaled Singh
Resident of H. No. K-556, Dargah Bavli Gate,
Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi.
(Acquitted vide judgment dated 31.10.2022)
2. Mr. Alamin @ Lefty
Son of Mr. Mohd. Habib Khan
Resident of H. No. 253H, Prem Gali No. 1,
Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi.
(facing trial)
FIR No. 283 of 2020.
Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC.
PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
Date of filing of the chargesheet : 16.11.2021.
Date of filing of the supplementary chargesheet : 05.09.2024.
against accused Alamin @ Lefty
Date of committal of the supplementary chargesheet : 05.09.2024.
against accused Alamin @ Lefty
Date of first hearing before the learned : 12.09.2024.
predecessor on committal of the supplementary
chargesheet
Date of framing of the charge : 21.11.2024.
Date of first hearing before the undersigned : 11.02.2026.
Date of conclusion of final arguments : 30.03.2026.
Date of judgment : 30.03.2026.
Date of uploading of the judgment : 04.04.2026.
Digitally signed
Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. by NIVEDITA
NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA
FIR No. 283 of 2020. ANIL Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.04
Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. 13:04:29
+0530
PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 1 of 33 ::-
-:: 2 ::-
Appearances : Mr. R. K. Gurjar, Chief Public Prosecutor (Officiating)
for the State.
Accused Mr. Alamin @ Lefty on bail with counsel,
Mr. S. Islam and Mr. Shan Ul Islam.
***********************************************************
JUDGMENT
1. Mr. Bhuran Sheikh and Mr. Alamin @ Lefty, both the accused persons, have been charge sheeted by Police Station Hazrat Nizamuddin for the offence under section 307/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC).
2. It is pertinent to mention here that accused Mr. Bhuran Sheikh was acquitted vide judgment dated 31.10.2022 by the learned predecessor of this Court. This judgment is in respect of accused Mr. Alamin @ Lefty, who was declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated 21.01.2021, arrested subsequently on 05.08.2024 and then faced the trial. The supplementary charge sheet was filed in the Court of Ld. JMFC-03, South-East District, Saket Courts on 05.09.2024.
3. On the complaint of one Mr. Mohd. Dhobir son of Mr. Mohd.
Dulal, FIR bearing number 283 of 2020 was registered by the police of Police Station Hazrat Nizamuddin under sections 307/323/34 of the IPC.
Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL Date: SHARMA 2026.04.04
Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. 13:04:36 +0530 FIR No. 283 of 2020.
Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 2 of 33 ::-
-:: 3 ::-
INVESTIGATION AND CHARGESHEET
4. The requisite investigation culminated into the charge sheet for offence under sections 307/323/34 of the IPC, which was filed against both the accused persons in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate-03, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi on 16.11.2021. Compliance of provision of Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) was made. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-03, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi committed the case against accused Mr. Bhuran Sheikh to the Court of Sessions under provisions of Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. on 30.04.2022 for trial being a sessions triable case for 06.05.2022. Accused Mr. Alamin @ Lefty was declared an absconder vide order dated 21.01.2021 of the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate-03, South-East. Vide judgment dated 31.10.2022, accused Mr. Bhuran Sheikh was acquitted. Thereafter, after the arrest of accused Alamin @ Lefty, a supplementary chargesheet for offence under 174 A of the IPC was filed against him on 05.09.2024. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-03, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi committed the supplementary chargesheet to the Court of Sessions under provisions of Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. on 05.09.2024 for trial being a sessions triable case for 12.09.2024.
PROSECUTION STORY
5. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution is that on receipt of DD No.66A regarding firing by 4 boys inside Nizzam Nagar Park, Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 283 of 2020. SHARMA 2026.04.04 13:04:44 +0530 Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 3 of 33 ::-
-:: 4 ::-
Nizamuddin IO SI C.L. Meena alongwith Ct. Amit reached at spot and came to know that out of four boys who were quarreling, two have suffered injuries and were removed to hospital by Ambulance. Meanwhile, another DD No.80A was received from AIIMS Trauma Centre regarding admitting the injured in hospital. Thereafter, IO reached hospital, leaving Ct. Amit at the spot, where injured Mr. Rahim and Mr. Mohd. Dhobir were getting medical treatment. IO recorded statement of Mr. Mohd. Dhobir wherein he has stated that on 21.09.2020 he alongwith his companion Mr. Rahim was present at Bavli Gate and at about 09:40 pm, accused Mr. Alamin @ Lefti came alongwith 3-4 boys and started abusing him. On objecting, he picked up a brick from the side and hit the same on his head. His companion Mr. Raheem was also hit on his mouth by some weapon like object, which he could not see because of darkness. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, the FIR was registered. After investigation, the chargesheet was filed under sections 307/323/34 of the IPC against both the accused persons.
CHARGE
6. Vide order dated 21.11.2024, charge was framed against the accused Mr. Alamin @ Lefty under sections 307/323/174-A of the IPC that on 21.09.2020 at about 09.40 pm at MCD Park, Near Bawli Gate, Basti Nazamuddin, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi, accused Alamin @ Lefty abused and hit a brick on the head of the complainant Mr. Mohd.
Digitally signed by NIVEDITASessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL Date:
FIR No. 283 of 2020. SHARMA 2026.04.04 13:04:51 Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. +0530 PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 4 of 33 ::-
-:: 5 ::-
Dhobir and caused injuries on his head, with such intention or knowledge or under such circumstances that if he had caused death of complainant Mr. Mohd. Dhobir, he would be guilty of murder; accused also caused injuries on the face of Mr. Raheem. On or before 21.01.2021, accused Alamin @ Lefty remained failed to appear before the Court of the then learned Metropolitan Magistrate-03, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, despite issuance of NBWs and process under section 82 Cr. P. C. at his given address i.e. A-70, Khusro Nagar, Alvi Chowk, Basti Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi. Accused Mr. Alamin @ Lefty pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as six (06) witnesses. The chart of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, chart of the exhibited documents and chart of the admitted witness and documents (under section 294 of the Cr.P.C.) alongwith the specified details are hereinbelow:
Chart of the witnesses examined by the prosecution Sr. Prosecution Name of Witness Description No. Witness No.
1. PW-1 HC Sumit Kumar Witness to the arrest of accused
2. PW-2 ASI Vijumon Proved the Kalandra under section 35.1 BNSS
3. PW-3 Mr. Mohd. Dhobir Complainant / victim / Digitally signed Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 283 of 2020. ANIL Date:
Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. SHARMA 2026.04.04 13:04:59 +0530 PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 5 of 33 ::-
-:: 6 ::-
injured
4. PW-4 SI Murari Krishan Arrested the accused after he was declared Proclaimed Offender
5. PW-5 HC Gopal Singh Duty Officer
6. PW-6 Retd. SI C. L. Meena Investigation Officer Chart of the exhibited documents Sr. Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by No. /Attested by
1. Ex. PW1/A Arrest memo of accused PW-1
2. Ex. PW1/B Personal search memo of PW-1 accused
3. Ex. PW1/C Disclosure statement of PW-1 accused
4. Ex. PW4/A Application for interrogation PW-4 and formal arrest of accused
5. Ex. PW5/A Copy of FIR PW-5
6. Ex. PW5/B Endorsement on the rukka PW-5
7. Ex. PW5/C Certificate under Section 65B PW-5 of Indian Evidence Act
8. Ex. PW6/A DD No. 66-A PW-6
9. Ex. PW6/B DD No. 80 PW-6
10. Ex. PW6/C Rukka PW-6
11. Ex. PW6/D Site plan of the spot of incident PW-6
12. Ex. PW6/E Disclosure statement PW-6
13. Ex. PW6/F Pointing out memo PW-6 Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 283 of 2020. SHARMA 2026.04.04 13:05:06 Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. +0530 PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 6 of 33 ::-
-:: 7 ::-
Chart of the material objects/ muddamals Sr. Material Object No. Description of Proved No. the Exhibit by/Attested by
1. Nil Nil Nil Chart of the admitted witness and documents (under section 294 of the Cr.P.C.) Sr. Admitted Witness / Description of Proved No. Document the Exhibit by/Attested by
1. Nil Nil Nil STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C.
8. In his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., accused Mr. Alamin @ Lefty has controverted and rebutted the entire incriminating evidence against him stating that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and the case was registered on the basis of false contents of complaint. He has preferred not to lead any evidence in his defence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
9. I have heard final arguments at length. I have also given my conscious thought and prolonged consideration to the material on record, relevant provisions of law and the precedents on the point.
10. The Chief Public Prosecutor for the State (Officiating) has argued that from the evidence and other material which has come on record, the prosecution has been able to successfully prove its case.
Digitally signed by NIVEDITANIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 283 of 2020. SHARMA 2026.04.04 13:05:12 Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. +0530 PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 7 of 33 ::-
-:: 8 ::-
It is prayed that accused Mr. Alamin @ Lefty be convicted for the commission of the alleged offences.
11. On the other hand, the counsel for accused Mr. Alamin @ Lefty has argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. The complainant/injured/victim has not supported the case of the prosecution. No separate FIR was registered in respect of the offence under section 174 A of the IPC nor any evidence has been led by the prosecution in respect of the same. There is no evidence on record to connect accused Mr. Alamin @ Lefty with the alleged offences. It is prayed that as the prosecution has failed to prove its case, the accused may be acquitted.
DISCUSSION, ANALYSIS AND OBSERVATIONS
12. The question is how to test the veracity of the prosecution story especially when it has some variations in the evidence. Mere variance of the prosecution story with the evidence, in all cases, should not lead to the conclusion inevitably to reject the prosecution story. Efforts should be made to find the truth, this is the very object for which the courts are created. To search it out, the Courts have been removing chaff from the grain. It has to disperse the suspicious cloud and dust out the smear as all these things clog the very truth. So long chaff, cloud and dust remains, the criminals are clothed with this protective layer to receive the benefit of doubt. So it is a solemn duty of the Courts, not to merely conclude and leave the case the moment suspicions are created. It Digitally signed by NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL FIR No. 283 of 2020.
Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.04 13:05:18 Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. +0530 PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 8 of 33 ::-
-:: 9 ::-
is the onerous duty of the Court within permissible limit to find out the truth. It means, on the other hand no innocent man should be punished but on the other hand to see no person committing an offence should get scot-free. If in spite of such effort suspicion is not dissolved, it remains writ at large, benefit of doubt has to be created to the accused. For this, one has to comprehend the totality of facts and the circumstances as spelled out through the evidence, depending on the facts of each case by testing the credibility of the witnesses, of course after excluding that part of the evidence which are vague and uncertain. There is no mathematical formula through which the truthfulness of the prosecution or a defence case could be concertized. It would depend upon the evidence of each case including the manner of deposition and his demeans, clarity, corroboration of witnesses and overall, the conscience of a Judge evoked by the evidence on record. So the Courts have to proceed further and make genuine efforts within judicial sphere to search out the truth and not stop at the threshold of creation of doubt to confer benefit of doubt.
13. Under this sphere, I now proceed to test the submissions of both the sides in respect of the case against accused Mr. Alamin @ Lefty.
OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 174 A OF THE IPC
14. Firstly the charge against accused Alamin @ Lefty for the offence punishable under section 174 of the IPC is being considered. The Digitally signed by NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL Date:
FIR No. 283 of 2020. SHARMA 2026.04.04 Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. 13:05:24 +0530 PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 9 of 33 ::-
-:: 10 ::-
allegations against him are that on or before 21.01.2021, accused Alamin @ Lefty remained failed to appear before the Court of the then learned Metropolitan Magistrate-03, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, despite issuance of NBWs and process under section 82 Cr. P. C. at his given address i.e. A-70, Khusro Nagar, Alvi Chowk, Basti Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi.
15. In the case of Maneesh Goomer v. State, Crl. M.C no. 4208/2011 & Crl. M.A 19453/2011 (Stay), decided on 04.01.2012, by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as follows:
"The abovementioned FIR for offence punishable under section 174- A IPC is an independent cause of action and merely because the complaint case under section 138 NI Act is settled, there is no reason that abovementioned FIR be also quashed.."
16. In the case of State of NCT of Delhi v. Proclaimed offfenders, Crl.
M.C.594/2014, decided on 09.08.2024, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as follows:
25. Thus, following the law laid down in the case of Maneesh Goomer (supra), it must be observed that the offence under section 174 A IPC gives rise to an independent cause of action".
11. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no dispute that Section 174 A of the IPC is a separate offence but the same can be tried together with other offences for which chargesheet already stands filed. This has been the consistent view taken by this Court as pointed out hereinabove. In Maneesh Goomer (supra), it is pertinent to note that there was no FIR in existence and the complaint case had already been withdrawn on account of compromise. Since the offence under section 174 A of the Digitally signed by NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 283 of 2020. ANIL Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.04 Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. 13:05:31 +0530 PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 10 of 33 ::-
-:: 11 ::-
IPC was a distinct offence, therefore, the Coordinate Bench held that FIR can be registered separately. The judgment does not say that a separate FIR has to be registered as a rule. The facts in the present case are clearly distinguishable.
17. In the case of Amandeep Gill & Anr. v. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Crl. M.C 5219/2017 & Crl. MA 20512/2017 , decided on 19.09.2024, by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as follows:
Analysis
18. Aside from the obvious conflict between the decisions of the SingleJudge in Maneesh Goomer (supra) and of Sunil Tyagi (supra), note is taken of the unanimous opinion of the other High Courts in the country.
19. Before assessing the various opinions, the pivot on which our analysis would rest is the decision of the Supreme Court in C. Muniappan (supra), which is binding on this Court. For offences under Section 188 IPC, the Supreme Court reiterated that there must be a complaint by a public servant whose lawful order has not been complied with, which must be in writing, since the provisions of Section 195 C.r.P.C were mandatory. It was stated that Court cannot assume cognizance of the case without such complaint and the trial/conviction was, therefore, void ab initio. Accordingly, it underscored that the law does not permit taking cognizance of an offence under Section 188 IPC, in view of the bar under Section 195 C.r.P.C, in absence of a complaint, as prescribed under the provision. Therefore, logically and fundamentally, Section 188 IPC being cognizable, the same reasoning would also apply to an offence under Section 174-A IPC, which is also cognizable.Digitally signed
Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 283 of 2020. ANIL Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.04 Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. 13:05:37 +0530 PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 11 of 33 ::-
-:: 12 ::-
20. Even though, the Supreme Court in C. Muniappan (supra) does not deal with Section 174-A directly, it would be difficult to draw an artificial distinction between Section 174-A IPC and Section 188 IPC, despite both being covered in the category of Sections 172-188, in Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. Maneesh Goomer (supra) does not take into account the decision in C. Muniappan (supra), which was probably not brought to the attention of the Court and, therefore, in Maneesh Goomer (supra) an independent analysis and interpretation was done, reaching a conclusion that since Section 174-A IPC was the only cognizable offence in the category covered under Section 195 C.r.P.C., it was a conscious inclusion by the legislature and, therefore, would stand on its own footing. It would be difficult to support such an interpretation in view of C. Muniappan (supra).
21. To clarify the sequence of legislative activity in regard to Section 195 Cr.P.C. and Section 174-A of IPC it is to be noted that Section 195 & 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C. has been on the statute book since 1973 and includes Section 172CRL.M.C. 5219/2017 18 of 21 was inserted w.e.f 23rd June, 2006. Therefore, on the date when section 174- A of IPC was inserted, if the legislature had to exclude it out of purview of section 195 Cr.P.C, it would have included that provision.
22. It is settled law that one cannot assume a careless omission by the legislature and proceed to fill in by judicial interpretation, a casus omissus. In any event the rule of strict and literal interpretation of statutes will prevail.
23. This is further buttressed by the fact that now in 2023, when the legislature has introduced a substantive new Act for substituting the IPC and the Cr.P.C., being BNS and BNSS, it has consciously made the exclusion for the equivalent provision of 174-A IPC (being Section 209 BNS) from the equivalent provision of Section 195 Cr.P.C (being Section 215 BNSS). Both these new provisions of the new statutes are reproduced as under:
Digitally signed by NIVEDITASessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 283 of 2020. ANIL Date:
Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. SHARMA 2026.04.04 13:05:43 +0530 PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 12 of 33 ::-
-:: 13 ::-
Section 209 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ('BNS'):
"209. Whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by a proclamation published under sub-section (1) of section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both, or with community service, and where a declaration has been made under sub-section (4) of that section pronouncing him as a proclaimed offender, heshall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."
Section 215 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023('BNSS'):
"215. (1) No Court shall take cognizance-
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 206 to 223 (both inclusive but excluding section 209) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence; or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate or of some other public servant who is authorised by the concerned public servant so to do;
(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, namely, sections 229 to 233 (both inclusive), 236, 237, 242 to 248 (both inclusive) and 267, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court; or
(ii) of any offence described in sub-section (1) of section 336, or punishable under sub-section (2) of section 340 or section 342 of the said Sanhita, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in Digitally signed Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 283 of 2020. ANIL Date:
Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. SHARMA 2026.04.04 13:05:50 +0530 PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 13 of 33 ::-
-:: 14 ::-
evidence in a proceeding in any Court; or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub- clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. (2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant or by some other public servant who has been authorised to do so by him under clause (a) of sub-section (1), any authority to which he is administratively subordinate or who has authorised such public servant, may, order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint:
Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded.
(3) In clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term "Court"
means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section.
(4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the Principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate:
Provided that--
(a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate;Digitally signed by NIVEDITA
NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 283 of 2020. SHARMA 2026.04.04 13:05:57 Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. +0530 PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 14 of 33 ::-
-:: 15 ::-
(b) where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed."
(emphasis added)
24. It could be argued that, since now the legislature has sought to exclude the equivalent of Section 174- A IPC, the legislative intent even prior to BNS and BNSS was the same, although not specified in the statute in IPC/Cr.P.C. This, however, will remain in the realm of legislative speculation and it would be encroaching upon the legislative function by providing such interpretation by judicial dicta, which is not permissible. Reference may be made inter alia to Supreme Court's opinion in Sangeeta Singh v. Union of India (2005) 7 SCC 484.
25. The decision in Maneesh Goomer (supra) being differed with, by another Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sunil Tyagi (supra), but also specifically differed with, by the Division Bench of High Court of Allahabad, Single Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Single Judge of the Madras High Court and Single Judge of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, may not be considered as good law.
26. However, as noted above, possibly Maneesh Goomer (supra) does not take into account the decision in C. Muniappan (supra) which was prior in time and therefore a de novo interpretation was provided.
27. Considering the analysis above, other submissions of the petitioners are not necessary to be adverted to.
28. The impugned order having solely relied on Maneesh Goomer (supra) for its conclusion, the said order cannot be sustained. Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. ANIL Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.04 FIR No. 283 of 2020. 13:06:03 +0530 Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 15 of 33 ::-
-:: 16 ::-
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Daljit Singh v. State of Haryana and another, Criminal Appeal No. 4359 of 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 12606/2023) decided on 02.01.2025 affirmed that section 174 A of the IPC is a substantive, stand alone offence. It observed as follows:
"...In conclusion, we hold that Section 174A IPC is an independent, substantive offence, that can continue even if the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C.is extinguished. It is a stand alone offence..."
19. The prosecution has examined HC Sumit Kumar (PW-1), ASI Vijumon (PW-2), SI Murari Krishan (PW-4) and Retired SI C. L. Meena (PW-6) to prove the offence under section 174 A of the IPC.
20. HC Sumit Kumar (PW-1) had accompanied SI Murari Kishan to Saket Courts, New Delhi where accused Alamin was being produced and he was arrested by SI Murari Kishan, after permission from the Court. In his cross examination, he has deposed that "...It is correct that grounds of arrest are not mentioned in arrest memo Ex. PW-1/A..."
21. ASI Vijumon (PW-2) has deposed that on receipt of information from the secret informer that a person namely Alamin @ Lefty, who is criminal in number of cases in the area of Hazrat Nizamuddin Police Station, is residing in a house in Prem Gali, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi, he gave the said information to the Digitally signed by NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 283 of 2020. ANIL Date:
Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. SHARMA 2026.04.04 13:06:10 +0530 PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 16 of 33 ::-
-:: 17 ::-
senior police officers and he was directed to conduct raid and to apprehend the aforesaid accused. Thereafter, accused Mr. Alamin @ Lefty was apprehended from his room and was brought to the Office of Crime Branch. He made enquiry from PS Hazrat Nizamuddin and it was revealed that accused Alamin @ Lefty was wanted in two criminal cases in the said police station. After interrogation, accused was arrested. In his cross examination, he has deposed that "...It is correct that there is no mention about any PO nor regarding any efforts being made for arrest of the PO in the said DD.... It is correct that grounds of arrest have not been mentioned therein at column no. 10 of arrest memo. However, it is mentioned here that "Yet to be arrested by IO". Vol. Accused Alamn @ Lefty had already been declared proclaimed offender in two cases of PS Hazrat Nizamuddin..."
22. SI Murari Krishan (PW-4) has received information that accused Alamin @ Lefty, who was declared Proclaimed Offender in case FIR No. 283/2020, PS Hazrat Nizamuddin was arrested by ASI Vijumon of PS Crime Branch Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and that he will be produced in the concerned Court of PS Hazrat Nizamuddin in Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi. He had moved application before the Court and arrested him. In his cross examination, he has deposed that "...It is correct that in the arrest memo of accused Alamin @ Lefty only the reason of arrest is mentioned, but the ground of arrest is not mentioned.... It is correct that no separate FIR has been registered regarding the Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 283 of 2020. SHARMA 2026.04.04 13:06:16 Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. +0530 PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 17 of 33 ::-
-:: 18 ::-
accused Alamin @ Lefty being Proclaimed Offender. I did not make any complaint with regard to registration of the FIR under Section 174-A IPC against the accused Alamin @ Lefty...."
23. Retired SI C. L. Meena (PW-6) has deposed in his examination in chief that "...During investigation, NBWs of both the accused persons were obtained....During investigation, accused Alamin was got declared Proclaimed Offender..." In his cross examination on behalf of the accused, he has deposed that "...I did not move any complaint neither to the Incharge of the police station or even to the Ld. Court with regard to any legal action against accused Alamin @ Lefty after being him got him declared Proclaimed Offender in the instant case...."
24. As regards the commission of offence under section 174-A IPC by accused Mr. Alamin @ Lefty, it clear that the prosecution has failed to prove the same. The above referred judgments mandate the procedure to be followed but in the present matter the same has not been followed. Neither any complaint in writing was made nor any separate FIR was registered against accused Mr. Alamin @ Lefty for the commission of the offence. Even the ground of arrest is not mentioned in the arrest memo. The list of proclaimed offenders including the name of accused Mr. Alamin @ Lefty, on the basis of which he was arrested, has not been produced nor proved. Even the proceedings under section 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. and the orders thereupon have not been produced and proved by the prosecution.
Digitally signed by NIVEDITANIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 283 of 2020. SHARMA 2026.04.04 13:06:23 Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. +0530 PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 18 of 33 ::-
-:: 19 ::-
The charge for the offence under section 174 of the IPC is not proved against accused Mr. Alamin @ Lefty for want of separate complaint in writing from the learned concerned Court on account of bar created under section 195 Cr.P.C.(Reliance can be placed upon Aman Deep Gill & anr. v. The State of NCT of Delhi, Crl. M.C N. 5219/2017 dated 19.04.2024).
OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 307/323 OF THE IPC
25. The following judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case have been enumerated by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajan v. The State of Haryana, 2025 INSC 1081:
i. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
ii. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the Digitally signed by Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 283 of 2020. ANIL Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.04 Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. 13:06:30 +0530 PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 19 of 33 ::-
-:: 20 ::-
matter of trivial details.
iii. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisonning his evidence. iv. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
v. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny. vi. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
vii. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. viii. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
ix. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.Digitally signed
Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 283 of 2020. ANIL Date:
Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. SHARMA 2026.04.04 13:06:37 PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin. +0530 State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 20 of 33 ::- -:: 21 ::- x. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time
duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
xi. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
xii. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The sub- conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.
xiii. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness." [See Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat 1983 Cri LJ 1096 : (AIR 1983 SC 753) Leela Ram v. State of Haryana AIR 1995 SC 3717 and Tahsildar Singh v. State of UP (AIR 1959 SC 1012)"
26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the undernoted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are Digitally signed Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 283 of 2020. ANIL Date:
Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. SHARMA 2026.04.04 13:06:43 +0530 PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 21 of 33 ::-
-:: 22 ::-
required to be kept in mind:
a. The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
b. Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
c. The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
d. The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
e. If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence. f. The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.
27. Also was held therein that in assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or Digitally signed by NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL Date:
FIR No. 283 of 2020. SHARMA 2026.04.04 Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. 13:06:51 +0530 PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 22 of 33 ::-
-:: 23 ::-
established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial yet the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or put forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence. {Balu Sudam Khalde and Another v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 13 SCC 365}.
28. It is very relevant to elaborate the evidence of the most material witness i.e. complainant/victim Mr. Mohd. Dhobir (PW-3).
29. Here it is important to mention that Mr. Rahim, victim/eye witness could not be produced by the prosecution for his evidence due to his demise on 25.03.2025, as per the report on the summons issued to him with which copy of his death certificate, statement of Ms. Rabiya Begum, his wife and Mr. Jamaluddin, his brother are annexed.
30.Complainant/victim Mr. Mohd. Dhobir (PW-3) has deposed in his examination in chief as follows:
1. I do not remember the date, month and year of the present incident. However, the incident was of about 08.00 pm. I and my friend Rahim @ Kallu Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 283 of 2020. SHARMA 2026.04.04 13:06:57 Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. +0530 PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 23 of 33 ::-
-:: 24 ::-
were consuming liquor in Nizam Nagar, near Garbage Box (kuda khatta).
2. In the mean while, one four wheeler reached there.
In the said vehicle there were three-four persons. They came out and attacked upon me and gave fist blows due to which I fell down. Thereafter, those assailants also attacked upon Rahim @ Kallu.
3. One of the assailant hit on the face of Rahim @ Kallu with the butt of the pistol due to which teeth of Rahim @ Kallu was broken. Other assailants told goli maar goli maar and they also fired upon us. Thereafter, I and my friend Rahim @ Kallu fled away from there. However, I and my friend Rahim @ Kallu had not received any bullet injury.
4. I had sustained injury on my head. I cannot identify any of the assailants now. Some public persons were shouting that Lefty ne maara Lefty ne maara. However, Lefty was not present there at the time of the incident. Lefty was known to me, earlier to the incident.
5. Someone had made call at No. 100. PCR Van reached and took me and my friend Rahim @ Kallu to AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi, where we both were medically examined. From the hospital, police took me and my friend Rahim @ Kallu to the police station Hazrat Nizamuddin and we were locked there in the police station.
6. Police made enquiry from me and I told that I had not seen the face of the assailants. Except this, I had not told anything to the police. Police had obtained my signature on a written paper, however, I am not aware about the contents of that document. I had simply signed the said document at the instance of the police official.
7. At this stage, the witness has identified his signature at point-A on document already Ex. PW-1/A. This document was signed by me only on the asking of police official. However, I did not know and aware about the document.
Digitally signed by NIVEDITASessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL Date:
FIR No. 283 of 2020. SHARMA 2026.04.04 Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. 13:07:04 +0530 PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 24 of 33 ::-
-:: 25 ::-
31. As complainant/victim Mr. Mohd. Dhobir (PW-3) was hostile to the prosecution case and had resiled from his previous statement, Chief Public Prosecutor for the State had cross examined him. He has deposed as follows:
1. It is wrong to suggest that statement Ex. PW-1/A was recorded by the police on my narration or that thereafter I had signed the same at point-A.
2. It is correct that I had named Alamin @ Lefty in complaint Ex. PW-1/A. (Vol.) I had named Alamin @ Lefty in complaint only as the public persons were saying that Lefty ne maaraa Lefty ne maaraa.
(Vol.) Lefty was not present at the time of incident at the spot. Lefty had not caused any injury to me.
3. I still cannot remember the date, month and year of the incident. It is wrong to suggest that I am intentionally and deliberately not recollecting the date, month and year as 21.09.2020 as I have been won over by the accused and wants to save him.
4. It is wrong to suggest that I had told to the police in my complaint Ex. PW-1/A or it so happened that Alamin @ Lefty took one brick which was lying there or that he hit with the same on my head. (Confronted with portion A to A-1 on Ex. PW-1/A wherein it is so recorded).
5. It is wrong to suggest that I had told to the police in my complaint Ex. PW-1/A or it so happened that I and Alamin @ Lefty were inimical earlier to this incident. (Confronted with portion B to B-1 on Ex. PW-1/A wherein it is so recorded).
6. Alamin @ Lefty is present in the Court today. (Vol.) Alamin @ Lefty had not caused any injury to me and even he was not present at the time of the incident at the spot.
7. It is wrong to suggest that I have intentionally or deliberately suppressed the true and incriminating facts of my complaint Ex. PW-1/A as I have been Digitally signed Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL FIR No. 283 of 2020. SHARMA Date:
2026.04.04 Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. 13:07:11 +0530 PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 25 of 33 ::-
-:: 26 ::-
won over by the accused and I want to save him. It is wrong to suggest that I have intentionally and deliberately concocted the fact that accused Lefty was no present at the spot, only to save him. It is wrong to suggest that I am intentionally not naming the accused Alamin @ Lefty as one of the assailant as I have been won over by him.
32. In his cross examination on behalf of accused Mr. Alamin @ Lefty, complainant/victim Mr. Mohd. Dhobir (PW-3) has deposed as follows:
1. It is correct that accused Alamin @ Lefty, who is present in the Court today, had not committed any offence the offence against me. It is correct that I had not furnished the name of Alamin @ Lefty as the culprit who had committed the offence against me. It is correct that accused Alamin @ Lefty is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.
33. It is clear from the record that nothing material for the prosecution came forth in the lengthy cross examination on behalf of the State of complainant/victim Mr. Mohd. Dhobir (PW-3) as he has failed to identify accused Mr. Alamin @ Lefty as the culprit who committed the offences against him and he has failed to assign any criminal role to him. He has not deposed an iota of evidence against accused Mr. Alamin @ Lefty that on 21.09.2020 at about 09.40 pm at MCD Park, Near Bawli Gate, Basti Nazamuddin, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi, accused Alamin @ Lefty abused and hit a brick on the head of the complainant Mr. Mohd. Dhobir and caused injuries on his Digitally signed by Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 283 of 2020. ANIL Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.04 Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. 13:07:18 PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin. +0530 State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 26 of 33 ::-
-:: 27 ::-
head, with such intention or knowledge or under such circumstances that if he had caused death of complainant Mr. Mohd. Dhobir, he would be guilty of murder; accused also caused injuries on the face of Mr. Raheem. In fact, in his examination in chief as well as the cross examination on behalf of the State, he has very categorically absolved him by deposing that he is not the culprit and failed to identify him as the culprit. He has failed to assign any criminal role to him. In his cross examination on behalf of accused Mr. Alamin @ Lefty, he has deposed that accused Alamin @ Lefty had not committed any offence the offence against me. He has admitted to be correct that he had not furnished the name of Mr. Alamin @ Lefty as the culprit who had committed the offence against him. He has admitted to be correct that accused Mr. Alamin @ Lefty is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Also nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession or at the instance of accused Mr. Alamin @ Lefty.
34. Here again, it is relevant to mention that Mr. Raheem, victim and eye witness expired during the pendency of the case, as mentioned above, and could not be examined by the prosecution.
35. The evidence of the other prosecution witnesses is not sufficient for establishing the prosecution case or for convicting accused Mr. Alamin @ Lefty as they are the police witnesses of investigation and recording of FIR, etc. HC Sumit Kumar (PW-1) is the witness to the arrest of accused. ASI Vijumon (PW-2) is the witness to Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 283 of 2020. SHARMA 2026.04.04 13:07:24 Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. +0530 PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 27 of 33 ::-
-:: 28 ::-
prove the Kalandra under section 35.1 BNSS. SI Murari Krishan (PW-4) had arrested the accused after he was declared Proclaimed Offender. HC Gopal Singh (PW-5) is the duty officer. Retd. SI C. L. Meena (PW-6) is the Investigation Officer.
36. From the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, no conclusive evidence has been come forth which would prove that on 21.09.2020 at about 09.40 pm at MCD Park, Near Bawli Gate, Basti Nazamuddin, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi, accused Alamin @ Lefty abused and hit a brick on the head of the complainant Mr. Mohd. Dhobir and caused injuries on his head, with such intention or knowledge or under such circumstances that if he had caused death of complainant Mr. Mohd. Dhobir, he would be guilty of murder; accused also caused injuries on the face of Mr. Raheem.
37. In the light of the aforesaid nature of deposition of Mr. Mohd.
Dhobir (PW-3) who is the complainant/ injured/victim, who is the star witness and the most material witness of the prosecution, I am of the considered view that the case of the prosecution cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable as the witness has retracted from his earlier statement and turned hostile. Nothing material for the prosecution has come forth in his cross examination on behalf of the State. He has, in fact, deposed that accused Mr. Alamin @ Lefty has not committed any offence against him. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment reported as Suraj Mal versus The Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. ANIL Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.04 FIR No. 283 of 2020. 13:07:31 +0530 Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 28 of 33 ::-
-:: 29 ::-
State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 S.C. 1408, wherein it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as:
"Where witness make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witness."
38. Similar view was also taken in the judgment reported as Madari @ Dhiraj & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004(1) C.C. Cases 487.
39. In the judgment reported as Namdeo Daulata Dhayagude and others v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 381, it was held that where the story narrated by the witness in his evidence before the Court differs substantially from that set out in his statement before the police and there are large number of contradictions in his evidence not on mere matters of detail, but on vital points, it would not be safe to rely on his evidence and it may be excluded from consideration in determining the guilt of accused.
40. If one integral part of the story put forth by a witness was not believable, then entire case fails. Where a witness makes two inconsistent statements in evidence either at one stage or both stages, testimony of such witness becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances, no conviction can be based on such evidence. (Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the hon'ble Delhi High Court reported as Ashok Narang v. State, 2012 (2) LRC 287 (Del).Digitally signed by NIVEDITA
NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 283 of 2020. SHARMA 2026.04.04 13:07:37 Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. +0530 PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 29 of 33 ::-
-:: 30 ::-
41. Crucially, the material and evidence on the record do not bridge the gap between "may be true" and "must be true" so essential for a Court to cross, while finding the guilty of an accused, particularly in cases where once the star witness namely Mr. Mohd. Dhobir (PW-3) has himself not deposed anything incriminating against accused Mr. Alamin @ Lefty. The other victim and eye witness namely Mr. Rahim expired and could not be produced by the prosecution for his evidence. Even otherwise, no useful purpose would be served by adopting any hyper technical approach in the issue.
42. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that accused Mr. Alamin @ Lefty is guilty of the charged offences punishable under section 307/323 of the IPC that on 21.09.2020 at about 09.40 pm at MCD Park, Near Bawli Gate, Basti Nazamuddin, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi, accused Alamin @ Lefty abused and hit a brick on the head of the complainant Mr. Mohd. Dhobir and caused injuries on his head, with such intention or knowledge or under such circumstances that if he had caused death of complainant Mr. Mohd. Dhobir, he would be guilty of murder; accused also caused injuries on the face of Mr. Raheem.
FINDING
43. From the above discussion, it is clear that the claim of the prosecution is neither reliable nor believable and is not trustworthy Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 283 of 2020. SHARMA 2026.04.04 13:07:43 +0530 Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 30 of 33 ::-
-:: 31 ::-
and the prosecution has failed to establish the offences against accused namely Mr. Alamin @ Lefty. The most material witness i.e. Mr. Mohd. Dhobir (PW-3) has not deposed an iota of evidence that accused Mr. Alamin @ Lefty has committed the charged offences under sections 307/323 of the IPC. The evidence of the other witnesses is insufficient for proving the same. The police witnesses have not been able to prove the offence under section 174 A of the IPC due to non fling of the complaint and non registering of a separate FIR, being a substantive, independent and stand alone offence.
44. Therefore, in view of above discussion, the conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against accused namely Mr. Alamin @ Lefty for the offences punishable under Sections 307/323/174 A of the IPC, which primarily rested on the testimony of its material witness i.e. Mr. Mohd. Dhobir (PW-3) complainant/victim/injured who has turned hostile. Despite being cross-examined on behalf of the State, the star witness of the prosecution has not supported the prosecution case at all. He has infact absolved the accused by deposing that the accused has not committed any offence against him. Mr. Raheem, victim and eye witness expired during the pendency of the case, as mentioned above, and could not be examined by the prosecution.
45. Considering the fact that the star witness of the prosecution has not Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Date:
FIR No. 283 of 2020. SHARMA 2026.04.04 13:07:49 Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. +0530 PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 31 of 33 ::-
-:: 32 ::-
uttered a single word against accused namely Mr. Alamin @ Lefty, which could support the prosecution story in respect of the offences under sections 307/323 of the IPC and evidence of the police witnesses indicates that that the offence under section 174 A of the IPC is not proved, the prosecution has fallen short of the expectations and failed to prove its case against him.
46.Consequently, accused namely Mr. Alamin @ Lefty is hereby acquitted of the charge for the offences punishable under sections 307/323 of the IPC that on 21.09.2020 at about 09.40 pm at MCD Park, Near Bawli Gate, Basti Nazamuddin, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi, accused Alamin @ Lefty abused and hit a brick on the head of the complainant Mr. Mohd. Dhobir and caused injuries on his head, with such intention or knowledge or under such circumstances that if he had caused death of complainant Mr. Mohd. Dhobir, he would be guilty of murder; accused also caused injuries on the face of Mr. Raheem.
Also, he is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under section 174 A of the IPC that on or before 21.01.2021, accused Alamin @ Lefty remained failed to appear before the Court of the then learned Metropolitan Magistrate-03, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, despite issuance of NBWs and process under section 82 Cr. P. C. at his given address i.e. A-70, Khusro Nagar, Alvi Chowk, Basti Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi.
47. Compliance of section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. is made in the order Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL Date:
Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. SHARMA 2026.04.04 FIR No. 283 of 2020. 13:07:56 +0530 Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 32 of 33 ::-
-:: 33 ::-
sheet of even date.
48. Case property, if any, be confiscated and be destroyed after expiry of period of limitation of appeal.
49. One copy of the judgment be given to the Chief Public Prosecutor for the State (Officiating), as requested.
50. After the expiry of the period of limitation for appeal and completion of all the formalities, the file be consigned to record Digitally signed room. NIVEDITA by ANIL NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.04 13:08:04 +0530 Announced in the open Court (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA) on this 30th day of March, 2026. Principal District & Sessions Judge, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi. 30.03.2026. (A) Judgment uploaded on 04.04.2026. *********************************************************** Sessions Case Number : 305 of 2022. FIR No. 283 of 2020.
Under sections 307/323/34/174A of the IPC. PS : Hazrat Nizamuddin.
State versus Bhuran Sheikh and another. -:: Page 33 of 33 ::-