Delhi District Court
State vs Manoj Kumar And Ors on 8 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS02, NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI PRESIDED BY: SH. ANMOL NOHRIA, DJS
STATE VS. MANOJ KUMAR & ORS.
FIR NO. : 51/2019, U/s 186/353/34 IPC
PS : SEELAMPUR
CRN DLNE020030812019
-:JUDGMENT:-
A. CIS No. of the Case : 1749/2019
B. FIR No. : 51/2019
C. Date of Institution : 17.07.2019
D. Date of Commission of Offence : 12.02.2019
E. Name of the complainant : Surjeet Kumar
F. Name of the Accused, his : 1) Manoj Kumar S/o
Parentage & Addresses Suresh Kumar R/o
H.No. I-87B, Gali no.
10 1/2 near Moni Baba
Mandir, Brhampuri,
Delhi.
2) Aftabuddin S/o
Barkat Ali R/o H.no.
E-16B-355, Jhuggi
near Brhampuri Puliya,
New Seelampur, Delhi
(proceedings against
him stands abated
Digitally
signed by
NOHRIA
NOHRIA ANMOL
vide orders dt. ANMOL Date:
2026.04.08
15:32:15
+0530
FIR No. 51/2019 State vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. PS Seelampur Page No.1 of 22
11.09.2025)
G. Offence complained of : U/s 186/353/34 IPC
H. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
I. Order reserved on : 21.01.2026
J. Date of Order : 08.04.2026
K. Final Order : ACQUITTED
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision of the Case
1.Briefly stated the present case of the prosecution is that on 12.02.2019 upon receiving the DD No.19B, ASI Netrapal Singh alongwith Ct. Chander Prakash reached at the spot where complainant/LDC MCD North Zone, SHD/ Surjeet Kumar met them and handed over accused persons Manoj Kumar and Aftabuddin and also gave his written complaint in which he stated that on 12.02.2019, he alongwith his encroachment team including 06 MCD Beldar namely Ram Kishan, Suraj Prashad, Kanesh, Mukesh, Sonu and Raji and HC Naseem, HC Narender, HC Rajesh and HC Neeraj from PS Seelampur were went to Seelampur Fruit Market in government vehicle for removing encroachment where one Manoj Kumar who stated himself in Media alongwith other associates disrupt the government work and removed two loaded rehdi from government vehicle by push and shove with them. Complainant and his encroachment team were saved by the accompanied police officials. Upon the complaint of complainant FIR No. 51/2019 PS Seelampur for the offence U/s 186/353 IPC was registered.
Digitally signed by NOHRIANOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
2026.04.08 15:32:20 +0530 FIR No. 51/2019 State vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. PS Seelampur Page No.2 of 22
2. On conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed for the offences U/s 186/353 IPC against the accused persons. The copy of the charge-sheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of provision U/s 207 Cr.P.C.
3. On the basis of the contents of the charge-sheet and after hearing both the parties, the charge was framed against the accused persons for the offences under Section 186/353 IPC vide order dated 27.03.2023.
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt-:
ORAL EVIDENCE Surjeet Kumar PW1 :
(Complainant) PW2 : Ram Kishan (witness) PW3 : Suraj Prasad (witness) PW4 : Kanesh Kumar (witness) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/A : Statement of complainant Ex. PW1/B & Ex. : Letter by MCD PW1/C Ex. PW1/D & Ex. : Arrest memos PW1/E Ex. Digitally PW1/D1 & signed by : Personal search memos NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL Ex. ANMOL Date:
2026.04.08
PW1/E1 15:32:28
+0530
FIR No. 51/2019 State vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. PS Seelampur Page No.3 of 22 Letter of Assistant Ex. PW1/F :
Commissioner Statement of Ram Kishan Ex. PW2/A :
u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
Statement of Suraj Prashad Ex. PW3/A :
u/S 161 Cr.P.C
Statement of Kanesh
Ex.PW4/A :
Kumar u/S 161 Cr.P.C
5. PW1/Surjeet Kumar is the complainant in the present matter. He has deposed on oath that in 2019 he was posted as Licensing Inspector in the MCD Department of North Zone and in the starting of 2019, he along with his encroachment team and the police, they visited at fruit market Seelampur after receiving the complaint from their department for the removal of encroachment wherein approx 150 tried to stop their way and stopped their truck and immediately they complaint to the police and the removal of encroachment become impossible due the nuisance created by mob of 100 to 150 persons. He along with his team reached at concerned PS as they got scared that the said mob will attack them where he had given the written complaint.
The MCD department had requested to the police force for the help in conducting the removal of encroachment. The direction to conduct the raid from the MCD departments. He failed to identify the accused persons during his deposition and had stated that it were the mob who have obstructed his way in conducting the encroachment raid and particularly he can not identify any of the person who obstructed his way on the said date.
Digitally
signed by
NOHRIA
NOHRIA ANMOL
ANMOL Date:
2026.04.08
15:32:34
+0530
FIR No. 51/2019 State vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. PS Seelampur Page No.4 of 22 5.1. PW1/ Surjeet Kumar was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State as he has not disclosed complete facts on point of identification of both the accused persons and he has shown the arrest memo of both the accused persons Aftabuddin and Manoj and the witness had identified his signature at point A and denied the content of arrest of both the accused person. He has shown the personal memo of both the accused persons Aftabuddin and the witness had identified his signature at point A and denied the content of arrest of both the accused person. He has shown the letter given by the Sh. A.K. Assistant Commissioner, Shahdara Zone EDMC to Sh. Netra Pal ASI PS- Seelampur which clearly stated by him to registered the case against both the accused persons and the same finding has given by him on the report and information of the witness who is the incharge of the raid on the day of incident and after the perusal of the same witness has stated that after the completion of encroachment programmed they were supposed to brief all the situation to the Assistant Commissioner and same they did on the same raid and had intimated the same after some days. He has correctly identify the signature of A. K. Sing. Assistant Commissioner at point A. He admitted that police has recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He denied all the formal suggestions put to him.
5.2. In his cross examination, PW1/Surjeet Kumar deposed that no video recording has been done by MCD Digitally Department during encroachment removal. They had not met signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
TVC members when they reached to that area. They had not 2026.04.08 15:32:41 +0530 FIR No. 51/2019 State vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. PS Seelampur Page No.5 of 22 served any notice to the street vendors before the removal of encroachment.
6. PW2/Ram Kishan is the in the encroachment team of complainant and he has deposed on oath that he did not remember the exact date of incident but it was the year of 2019. He was doing his job of the Beldari and was picking up the Takhat, Readhi and had kept the same in the truck. In the meanwhile the argument and scuffled took place in between the public persons. He intimated the same facts to their LDC Surjeet Kumar. He unable to identify both the accused persons and had stated that he do not know the persons who standing in the court.
6.1. PW2/ Ram Kishan was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State as he has not disclosed complete facts on point of identification of both the accused persons. He was read out his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C Ex. PW2/A from portion A to A1 and after hearing the same he had denied the content from portion A to A1 and had stated that police had not recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He denied the suggestion that he is deliberately not identify both the accused persons in the present case as he has settled the matter from both of them outside the court and saving both of them from punishment. He denied the suggestion that both the accused persons had obstructed the way of MCD Team on the day of encroachment raid and he is falsely deposing on the identification of both the accused persons. Digitally signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
2026.04.08 15:32:47 +0530 6.2. PW2/Ram Kishan was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity given to him.
FIR No. 51/2019 State vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. PS Seelampur Page No.6 of 22
7. PW3/Suraj Prasad is in the encroachment team of complainant and he has deposed on oath that he did not remember the exact date of incident but it was the year of 2019.
He was doing his job of the Beldari and was present in the truck and some of their mates/Beldars were picking up the rehadies and had kept the same in the truck. Meanwhile the argument and scuffled took place in between the public persons. About 150 public persons were collected at the spot and were trying to remove the rehadies from their truck. He was present in the truck and had not get down from the same. Police had not recorded his statement in the present case. He failed to identify the accused Manoj Kumar and stated that he do not know the persons who standing in the court.
7.1. PW3/ Suraj Prasad was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State as he has not disclosed complete facts on point of identification of both the accused persons. He was read out his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C Ex. PW3/A from portion A to A1 and after hearing the same he had denied the content from portion A to A1 and had stated that police had not recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C. He denied the suggestion that he is deliberately not identify both the accused persons in the present case as he has settled the matter from both of them outside the court and saving both of them from punishment. He denied the suggestion that both the accused persons had obstructed the way of MCD Team on the day of encroachment raid and he is falsely deposing on the identification of both the accused persons. Digitally signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
2026.04.08 15:32:55 +0530 FIR No. 51/2019 State vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. PS Seelampur Page No.7 of 22 7.2. PW3/Suraj Prasad was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity given to him.
8. PW4/Kanesh Kumar is in the encroachment team of complainant and he has deposed the similar lines as deposed by PW4.
8.1. PW4/Kanesh Kumar was cross examined by Ld. APP for the State as he has not disclosed complete facts on point of identification of both the accused persons. He was read out his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C Ex. PW4/A from portion A to A1 and after hearing the same he had denied the content from portion A to A1 and had stated that police had not recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C. He denied the suggestion that he is deliberately not identify both the accused persons in the present case as he has settled the matter from both of them outside the court and saving both of them from punishment. He denied the suggestion that both the accused persons had obstructed the way of MCD Team on the day of encroachment raid and he is falsely deposing on the identification of both the accused persons.
8.2. PW4/Kanesh Kumar was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity given to him.
9. At this stage, reference may be made to a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in the case of Govind & Ors vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 104(2003) DLT 510 wherein it was held that Digitally signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL "..In cases where ultimate chance of Date:
ANMOL 2026.04.08 15:33:01 +0530 FIR No. 51/2019 State vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. PS Seelampur Page No.8 of 22 conviction is very bleak or there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion on a future date."
10. Right to speedy trial is constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of the accused person. It has been held in P.Ramchandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka AIR 2022 SC 1856 that the court should exercise its power available under Criminal Procedure Code to give effect to the right of speedy trial to the accused. Similar observations were made in Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Mahrashtra AIR 2008 SC 3057. Furthermore, in Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Abr. 1996 JCC 507 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that valuable time of the court should not be wasted merely for formal completion of procedure when there is no chance of the trial culminating in conviction.
11. Hence, PE was closed on 11.09.2025 after the observation that all the four witnesses including the complainant have turned hostile and have stated that they cannot identify the accused as around 150 people had gathered at the spot. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to allow Digitally the accused to personally explain the incriminating circumstances signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
appearing in evidence against him, the statement of the accused 2026.04.08 15:33:09 +0530 FIR No. 51/2019 State vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. PS Seelampur Page No.9 of 22 was recorded without oath under Section 281 read with Section 313 CrPC. He stated that he has been falsely implicated and not committed the offence as alleged and denied the allegations in toto. Pursuant thereto, he stated that he does not wish to lead defence evidence and matter was fixed for final arguments.
12. I have heard the learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the accused at length. I have also have given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
13. Final arguments heard. Case record perused meticulously.
14. This Court has thoughtfully considered the material on record and arguments advanced with due circumspection.
15. The prosecution has charged the accused persons with offence punishable under S. 186 IPC. It reads as follows:
"186. Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions. --Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
16. In Durgacharan Naik v. State of Orissa, (1966) 3 SCR 636: AIR 1966 SC 1775: 1966 Cri LJ 1491, Hon´ble Supreme Court has observed that:
"We have expressed the view that Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code does Digitally signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
not bar the trial of an accused person for a 2026.04.08 15:33:15 +0530 FIR No. 51/2019 State vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. PS Seelampur Page No.10 of 22 distinct offence disclosed by the same or slightly different set of facts and which is not included within the ambit of the section, but we must point out that the provisions of Section 195 cannot be evaded by resorting to devices or camouflage. For instance, the provisions of the section cannot be evaded by the device of charging a person with an offence to which that section does not apply and then convicting him of an offence to which it does, on the ground that the latter offence is a minor one of the same character, or by describing the offence as one punishable under some other section of the Indian Penal Code, though in truth and substance the offence falls in the category of sections mentioned in Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Merely by changing the garb or label of an offence which is essentially an offence covered by the provisions of Section 195 prosecution for such an offence cannot be taken cognizance of by mis describing it or by putting a wrong label on it."
17. Dealing with the offence punishable under S. 186 IPC Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Lilla Singh v. Queen Empress, ILR (1895) 22 Cal 286 and Queen Empress v. Jogendra Nath Mukerjee, ILR (1897) 24 Cal 320 held that the public function in the discharge of which a public servant was obstructed must be a legal or legitimately authorised function, in order that the obstruction might constitute an offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code.
Digitally
18. In Santosh Kumar Jain v. State, 1951 SCC 190:
signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
2026.04.08 1951 SCC OnLine SC 19 it has been observed by Hon'ble 15:33:36 +0530 Supreme Court that for an offence under section 186 IPC it is not FIR No. 51/2019 State vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. PS Seelampur Page No.11 of 22 necessary that the act which was obstructed must be duly authorised and otherwise lawful if it was being done or was sought to be done by a public servant honestly and in good faith believing that it was part of his public functions.
19. For prosecuting an accused for offence punishable under section 186 IPC, complaint under section 195 CrPC is mandatory. In the present case Assistant Commissioner, Shahdara North Zone had given a complaint under section 195 CrPC Ex.PW1/F dated 17.05.2019 after receiving a written complaint.
20. Next, the prosecution has charged the accused persons with offence punishable under S. 353 IPC. It reads as:
"353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.-- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
21. It has been held by Hon´ble Supreme Court in Durgacharan Naik (supra) that:
"We pass on to consider the next contention of the appellants that the conviction of the Digitally appellants under Section 353 of the Indian signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL Penal Code is illegal because there is a ANMOL Date:
2026.04.08 contravention of Section 195(1) of the 15:33:42 +0530 FIR No. 51/2019 State vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. PS Seelampur Page No.12 of 22 Criminal Procedure Code which requires a complaint in writing by the process server or the ASI. It was submitted that the charge under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is based upon the same facts as the charge under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and no cognizance could be taken of the offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code unless there was a complaint in writing as required by Section 195(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was argued that the conviction under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is tantamount, in the circumstances of this case, to a circumvention of the requirement of Section 195(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the conviction of the appellants under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code by the High Court was, therefore, vitiated in law. We are unable to accept this argument as correct. It is true that most of the allegations in this case upon which the charge under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is based are the same as those constituting the charge under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code but it cannot be ignored that Sections 186 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code relate to two distinct offences and while the offence under the latter section is a cognizable offence, the one under the former section is not so. The ingredients of the two offences are also distinct. Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code is applicable to a case where the accused voluntarily obstructs a public servant in the discharge of his public functions but under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code the ingredient of assault or use of criminal force while the public servant is doing his duty as such is Digitally signed by NOHRIA necessary. The quality of the two offences is NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
also different. Section 186 occurs in 2026.04.08 15:33:49 +0530 Chapter X of the Indian Penal Code dealing FIR No. 51/2019 State vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. PS Seelampur Page No.13 of 22 with contempts of the lawful authority of public servants, while Section 353 occurs in Chapter XVI regarding the offences affecting the human body. It is well established that Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not bar the trial of an accused person for a distinct offence disclosed by the same set of facts but which is not within the ambit of that section. In Satish Chandra Chakravarti v. Ram Dayal De [24 CWN 982] it was held by Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court that where the maker of a single statement is guilty of two distinct offences, one under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, which is an offence against public justice, and the other an offence under Section 499 wherein the personal element largely predominates, the offence under the latter section can be taken cognizance of without the sanction of the court concerned, as the Criminal Procedure Code has not provided for sanction of court for taking cognizance of that offence. It was said that the two offences being fundamentally distinct in nature, could be separately taken cognizance of. That they are distinct in character is patent from the fact that the former is made non-compoundable, while the latter remains compoundable; in one for the initiation of the proceedings the legislature requires the sanction of the court under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, while in the other, cognizance can be taken of the offence on the complaint of the person defamed. It is pointed out in the Full Bench case that where upon the facts the commission of several offences is disclosed some of which Digitally signed require sanction and others do not, it is by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL open to the complainant to proceed in Date:
ANMOL 2026.04.08 15:33:55 respect of those only which do not require +0530 sanction; because to hold otherwise would FIR No. 51/2019 State vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. PS Seelampur Page No.14 of 22 amount to legislating and adding very materially to the provisions of Sections 195 to 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The decision of the Calcutta case has been quoted with approval by this Court in Basir-ul-Huq v. State of West Bengal [(1953) SCR 836] in which it was held that if the allegations made in a false report disclose two distinct offences, one against a public servant and the other against a private individual, the latter is not debarred by the provisions of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code, from seeking redress for the offence committed against him.
In the present case, therefore, we are of the opinion that Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not bar the trial of the appellants for the distinct offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, though it is practically based on the same facts as for the prosecution under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code.
We have expressed the view that Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not bar the trial of an accused person for a distinct offence disclosed by the same or slightly different set of facts and which is not included within the ambit of the section, but we must point out that the provisions of Section 195 cannot be evaded by resorting to devices or camouflage. For instance, the provisions of the section cannot be evaded by the device of charging a person with an offence to which that section does not apply and then convicting him of an offence to which it does, on the ground that the latter Digitally signed by offence is a minor one of the same NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL character, or by describing the offence as ANMOL Date:
2026.04.08 15:34:02 one punishable under some other section of +0530 the Indian Penal Code, though in truth and FIR No. 51/2019 State vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. PS Seelampur Page No.15 of 22 substance the offence falls in the category of sections mentioned in Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Merely by changing the garb or label of an offence which is essentially an offence covered by the provisions of Section 195 prosecution for such an offence cannot be taken cognizance of by misdescribing it or by putting a wrong label on it. On behalf of the appellants Mr Garg suggested that the prosecution of the appellants under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code was by way of evasion of the requirements of Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. But we are satisfied that there is no substance in this argument and there is no camouflage or evasion in the present case."
22. As discussed above, the sanction under S. 195 CrPC is not required for prosecuting the accused persons for offence punishable under section 353.
23. The case of the prosecution is based upon the written complaints given by PW1/Surjeet Kumar who was conducted the raid alongwith his team which constructed of PW2, PW3 and PW4 and others. However all of the said witnesses have deposed about the incident in the form of stating that they had gone for the raid and during the removal of the rahedi and other stuff, they were intervened by public persons on which they approached the police. It is further stating by them that a mob of around 100-150 people gathered at the spot and they were unable to identify the accused persons present in the court and have stated that it was a Digitally signed by NOHRIA mob that had intervened and they do not know the accused NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
2026.04.08 15:34:10 persons present in the Court. The said witnesses were cross +0530 FIR No. 51/2019 State vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. PS Seelampur Page No.16 of 22 examined by the Ld. APP for the State on the fact of not disclosure of complete facts as to identity of the accused persons, however, even in the cross examination by Ld. APP PW2, PW3 and PW4 have denied giving any statement to the police and have denied the suggestion put forward by the Ld. APP. Further in the cross examination, PW2, PW3 and PW4 have again not identified the accused. In the cross examination by Ld. APP though PW1 has admitted the signature of the arrest memo and personal search memo but has denied the contents of the same. Further, PW1 in his cross examination was confronted with letter given to Assistant Commissioner wherein the name of the accused persons is mentioned, however he has stated that the said intimation was given after some days. No question has been put to PW1 by the Ld. APP as to how the names of accused persons have been mentioned in the letter if he is unable to identifying them owing to the mob and thus no clarification has been brought from the said letter Ex. PW1/F. Thus, it can be concluded that PW1 to PW4 have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.
24. It is pertinent to note that under Indian law, the evidence of hostile witnesses is not discarded completely. The legal maxim, "false in uno false in ombnibus" is not applicable in India. With respect to the evidentiary value of hostile witness, it was observed by the Apex Court in the case of Rohtash Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434, as under:-
"25. It is a settled legal proposition that Digitally evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL rejected in toto, merely because the prosecution ANMOL Date:
2026.04.08 chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined 15:34:18 +0530 FIR No. 51/2019 State vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. PS Seelampur Page No.17 of 22 him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced, or washed off the record altogether. The same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable, upon a careful scrutiny thereof."
25. Therefore, it has to be seen if the evidence of such hostile witnesses can be relied in part. As discussed above PW2, PW3 and PW4 have categorically denied giving any statement to the police and have stated that a mob of 150 persons had gathered at the spot and they have failed to identify the accused.
Also PW1, as discussed above has not deposed anything against the accused persons and no clarification regarding the identity in Ex. PW1/F has been brought from his cross examination by the Ld. APP and he has also failed to identify the accused persons.
26. For holding the accused persons guilty for the offence u/S 186/353 IPC, it is paramount that identity of the accused persons have to be established by direct evidence. For this, the entire case of the prosecution would rest upon the deposition of the complainant i.e. PW1 and his team, who were the victims of the case. No other independent or public witnesses have been cited. However, interestingly, the PW1 to PW4 have turned completely hostile and they have not named the accused persons as the persons, who obstructed them or used criminal force against them and they did not depose anything incriminating against the accused persons.
Digitally signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL
27. Arguendo, even if the contents of PW1/F are read ANMOL Date:
2026.04.08 15:34:26 against the accused persons, the same have to be supported by +0530 some direct evidence from the eye witnesses, however they have FIR No. 51/2019 State vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. PS Seelampur Page No.18 of 22 also turned hostile and failed to identify the accused persons. T herefore, there is nothing on record to connect the accused person with the commission of the offence. Thus, even if the evidence of the hostile witnesses PW1 to PW4 is considered partly, there is nothing to implicate the accused person in the present case.
28. In a criminal trial, the burden on the prosecution is beyond reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt is a rule of cau- tion laid down by the Courts of Law in respect of assessing the evidence in criminal cases. In Awadhi Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1971) 3 SCC 116 at page 117, Hon'ble Supreme Court has ob- served that:
"Before a person can be convicted on the strength of circumstantial evidence, the cir- cumstances in question must be satisfacto- rily established and the proved circum- stances must bring home the offence to the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If those circumstances or some of them can be ex- plained by any other reasonable hypothesis then the accused must have the benefit of that hypothesis. But in assessing the evi- dence imaginary possibilities have no place. What is to be considered are ordi- nary human probabilities."
29. In State of Haryana v. Bhagirath, (1999) 5 SCC 96 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 658 : 1999 SCC OnLine SC 577 at page 99 Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:
"But the principle of benefit of doubt be- Digitally longs exclusively to criminal jurisprudence.
signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL The pristine doctrine of benefit of doubt can ANMOL Date:
2026.04.08 15:34:34 be invoked when there is reasonable doubt +0530 FIR No. 51/2019 State vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. PS Seelampur Page No.19 of 22 regarding the guilt of the accused. It is the reasonable doubt which a conscientious ju- dicial mind entertains on a conspectus of the entire evidence that the accused might not have committed the offence, which af- fords the benefit to the accused at the end of the criminal trial. Benefit of doubt is not a legal dosage to be administered at every segment of the evidence, but an advantage to be afforded to the accused at the final end after consideration of the entire evi- dence, if the Judge conscientiously and rea- sonably entertains doubt regarding the guilt of the accused. It is nearly impossible in any criminal trial to prove all the elements with a scientific precision. A criminal court could be convinced of the guilt only beyond the range of a reasonable doubt. Of course, the expression "reasonable doubt" is inca- pable of definition. Modern thinking is in favour of the view that proof beyond a rea- sonable doubt is the same as proof which affords moral certainty to the Judge."
30. Francis Wharton, a celebrated writer on criminal law in the United States has quoted from judicial pronouncements in his book Wharton's Criminal Evidence (at p. 31, Vol. 1 of the 12th Edn.) as follows:
"It is difficult to define the phrase 'reasonable doubt'. However, in all criminal cases a careful explanation of the term ought to be given. A definition often quoted or followed is that given by Chief Justice Shaw in the Webster case. He says:
'It is not mere possible doubt, because everything relating to human affairs and depending upon moral evidence is open to Digitally signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that ANMOL Date:
2026.04.08 15:34:41 state of the case which, after the entire +0530 comparison and consideration of all the FIR No. 51/2019 State vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. PS Seelampur Page No.20 of 22 evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that consideration that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge."
31. In the treatise The Law of Criminal Evidence authored by H.C. Underhill it is stated (at p. 34, Vol. 1 of the 5th Edn.) thus:
"The doubt to be reasonable must be such a one as an honest, sensible and fair- minded man might, with reason, entertain consistent with a conscientious desire to ascertain the truth. An honestly entertained doubt of guilt is a reasonable doubt. A vague conjecture or an inference of the possibility of the innocence of the accused is not a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is one which arises from a consideration of all the evidence in a fair and reasonable way. There must be a candid consideration of all the evidence and if, after this candid consideration is had by the jurors, there remains in the minds a conviction of the guilt of the accused, then there is no room for a reasonable doubt."
32. In Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v.State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : (1974) 1 SCR 489 Hon'ble Supreme Court cautioned that:
"the dangers of exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt at the expense of social defence demand special emphasis in the contemporary context of escalating Digitally signed crime and escape. The judicial instrument by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL has a public accountability. The cherished Date:
ANMOL 2026.04.08 15:34:47 principles or golden thread of proof beyond +0530 reasonable doubt which runs through the FIR No. 51/2019 State vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. PS Seelampur Page No.21 of 22 web of our law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt."
33. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the Prosecution has not been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused Accused persons have committed offences under S. 186/353 IPC as their identity as offender is not established. Therefore, accused Manoj Kumar S/o Suresh Kumar is found not guilty in the present case and resultantly, he stands acquitted in the present case.
34. Accused is directed to furnish bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with a surety of like amount u/s 437A Cr.P.C and are directed to be present before the Ld. Appellate Court as and when directed.
35. This judgment contains 22 pages. This judgment has been signed and pronounced by the undersigned in open court.
36. Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official website of District Courts, Karkardooma forthwith.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL
ANMOL Date:
2026.04.08
15:34:54 +0530
Announced in open court (ANMOL NOHRIA)
today i.e. 08th April, 2026 JMFC-02/NE/KKD/Delhi
FIR No. 51/2019 State vs. Manoj Kumar & Ors. PS Seelampur Page No.22 of 22