Delhi District Court
State vs Manav @ Mogly on 15 December, 2025
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Sessions Case Number : 125/2017
CNR No. DLSE01-002168-2017.
State
versus
1. Mr. Manav @ Mogly
Son of Mr. Dalchand
R/o H. No. 1867, Ravidas Basti,
Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi.
(proceedings abated vide order dated 30.05.2022)
2. Mr. Shafiq Ahmad
Son of Mr. Md. Rafiq
R/o H. No. 1818, Udai Chand Marg,
Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi.
(facing trial)
FIR No. 317 of 2014.
U/s 308/506/34 of the IPC.
PS : Defence Colony.
Date of filing of the chargesheet : 20.12.2016.
Date of committal : 27.02.2017.
Date of first hearing before the learned :03.03.2017.
predecessor on committal of the case
Date of first hearing before the undersigned : 26.11.2025.
Date of conclusion of final arguments : 13.12.2025
Date of judgment : 13.12.2025.
Appearances : Mr. R.K. Gurjar, Chief Public Prosecutor for the State.
The proceedings against accused Mr. Manav @ Mogly
stand abated vide order dated 30.05.2022.
Accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad on bail.
Mr. Jauhar Ali, counsel for the accused Mr. Shafiq
Ahmad.
***********************************************************
Digitally signed
by NIVEDITA
NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA
ANIL Date:
Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. SHARMA 2025.12.15
15:23:38
FIR No. 317/2014. +0530
Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC.
PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 1 of 37 ::-
-:: 2 ::-
JUDGMENT
1. At the outset, it is relevant to mention that this is the oldest criminal matter pending in this Court and is listed at serial number 1 in the list of oldest criminal cases and at serial number 3 in the list of total pendency.
2. Mr. Manav @ Mogly and Mr. Shafiq Ahmad , both the accused persons, have been charge sheeted by Police Station Defence Colony for the offences under sections 308/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC).
3. On the complaint of Mr. Dharmender Kashyap son of Mr. Prem Kumar, an FIR bearing no. 317 of 2014 was registered by the police of Police Station Defence Colony under Section 308/506/34 IPC.
Chargesheet
4. The requisite investigation culminated into the charge sheet, which was filed against the accused persons in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate-09, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi on 20.12.2016. After compliance of provisions of Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.), learned Metropolitan Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions under provisions of Section 209 Cr.P.C. on 27.02.2017 for trial being a sessions trial case.
Case of the prosecution
5. Succinctly, the case of the prosecution is that on 29.11.2014, on Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 317/2014. SHARMA 2025.12.15 15:23:45 Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. +0530 PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 2 of 37 ::-
-:: 3 ::-
receiving of DD No. 29A, SI Dinesh along with Ct. Sattu went to the spot near City Bank, Main Market Defence Colony and it was found that the injured had been removed to unknown hospital. In the meanwhile, on receiving of DD No. 3A, SI Dinesh along with Ct. Sattu went to AIIMS, Trauma Center and in the hospital, the injured Mr. Lalit Kashyap was found to be admitted but his statement was not recorded as he was unfit for statement. On 30.11.2014, the complainant Mr. Dharmender Kashyap came to the police station and gave statement in which he had alleged that on 29.11.2014 at about 10:45 pm, when he along with Mr. Lalit Kashyap was working at their paan shop near the City Bank ATM in Defence Colony, two boys approached and began abusing and assaulting Mr. Lalit Kashyap, accusing him of prior abuse. One boy hit Mr. Lalit Kashyap with a bamboo stick, causing a head injury.
When the complainant intervened, they threatened and pushed him before fleeing. A PCR was called and Mr. Lalit Kashyap was taken to AIIMS Trauma Center. On the basis of his statement, the FIR was registered. During the investigation of the case, the police prepared the site plan of the incident, seized blood stained clothes of the injured Mr. Lalit Kashyap which he was wearing at the time of alleged incident and also seized the weapon of offence i.e. lathi. The police also collected the CCTV footage of the place of incident. The accused persons were arrested and after investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the accused persons under Section 308/506/34 of the IPC.
Charge
6. Vide order dated 14.03.2019 of the learned predecessor of this Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 317/2014. SHARMA 2025.12.15 15:23:51 Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. +0530 PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 3 of 37 ::-
-:: 4 ::-
Court, charge was framed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 308/323/506(II)/34 of the IPC that on 29.11.2014 at about 10:45 pm in front of Citi Bank ATM, Main Market, Defence Colony, New Delhi, the accused persons intentionally assaulted Mr. Lalit Kashyap son Mr. Prem Kumar and the accused Mr. Manav @ Mogly gave a danda blow on the head of Mr. Lalit Kashyap, causing fracture of his skull with such intention or knowledge that if this assault by them had caused death of Mr. Lalit Kashyap, they would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the accused persons further assaulted Mr. Dharmender Kashyap voluntarily causing him hurt and also threatened both of them with death. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Proceedings abated against accused Mr. Manav @ Mogly
7. During the pendency of the case, accused Mr. Manav @ Mogly had expired and the proceedings against him had been abated vide order dated 30.05.2022.
Prosecution evidence
8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as eighteen (18) witnesses.
9. Mr. Swapan Kumar Pradhan (PW-1) is the eye-witness. Mr. Devender Kashyap (PW-2) is the elder brother of the injured Mr. Lalit Kashyap. Mr. Ajit Singh (PW-3) is the Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone-Idea Ltd. who has proved the call details of mobile nos. 8860150013, 9540828503 and 9891410592. Mr. Lalit Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 317/2014. SHARMA 2025.12.15 15:23:59 Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. +0530 PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 4 of 37 ::-
-:: 5 ::-
Kashyap (PW-4) is the injured/victim. Dr. Naren (PW-5) is Senior Resident, Department of Radiology, AIIMS and had proved X-ray report of patient Mr. Lalit Kashyap prepared by Dr. Aparna Juneja. Mr. Dharmender Kashyap (PW-6) is the complainant and eye- witness of the incident. Mr. Rajender Singh (PW-7) is the Record Clerk, AIIMS Trauma Center who has proved the MLC of Lalit Kashyap prepared by Dr. Rakesh Kumar (PW-11). Ms. Sunita Gupta (PW-8) is the Senior Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL who has proved her reports as Ex. PW-8/A and Ex. PW-8/B. Mr. Ajay Kumar (PW-9) is the Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. who has proved the call details of mobile no. 9650937149. Ct. Jitender (PW-10), ASI Sunil Kumar (PW-12) and HC Sushil Dan (PW-14) are the formal witnesses who joined the investigation with IO Insp. Shiv Dev Singh (PW-17). SI Balram Singh (PW-13) is the photographer in Crime Mobile Team and he had taken photographs of the spot. Dr. Manoj Phalak (PW-15) is the Additional Professor, Department of Neuro Surgery, AIIMS who had proved the discharge summary of Lalit as Ex.PW-15/A and opinion on the nature of injury as Ex.PW-15/B. SI Amit Mann (PW-16) had deposed that he had obtained the result on the MLC of injured Mr. Lalit Kashyap and had prepared the supplementary chargesheet and filed the same in the Court. Insp. Shiv Dev Singh (PW-17) is the Investigating Officer. HC Arun Kumar (PW-18) was working as MHC(M) in PS Defence Colony and has proved entries in the malkhana register as Ex.PW18A.
Statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
10. In his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., accused Mr. Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 317/2014. SHARMA 2025.12.15 15:24:07 +0530 Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 5 of 37 ::-
-:: 6 ::-
Shafiq Ahmad has controverted and rebutted the entire incriminating evidence against him stating that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has preferred not to lead any evidence in his defence.
Final arguments
11. 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.
12. The Chief Public Prosecutor for the State has argued that from the evidence and other material which has come on record, the prosecution has been able to successfully prove its case. It is prayed that accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad be convicted for the commission of the alleged offences.
13. On the other hand, the counsel for accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad has argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. The complainant/injured/victim and the other material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. There is no evidence on record to connect accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad with the alleged offences. It is prayed that as the prosecution has failed to prove its case, accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad may be acquitted.
Discussion, analysis and observations
14. 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 Digitally signed Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 317/2014. ANIL Date:
SHARMA 2025.12.15 Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. 15:24:15 +0530 PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 6 of 37 ::-
-:: 7 ::-
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 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.
15. Under this sphere, I now proceed to test the submissions of both Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Date:
FIR No. 317/2014. SHARMA 2025.12.15 15:24:21 Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. +0530 PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 7 of 37 ::-
-:: 8 ::-
the sides.
CCTV footage
16. As regards the CCTV footage of the alleged incident contained in the Pen Drive (Ex.P-3), it may be mentioned that the prime source from where the same was taken has neither been cited as witness nor produced nor examined by the prosecution. Inspector Shiv Dev Singh (PW-17) has deposed that "...I collected the CCTV Footage of the place of incident from the Server installed in the police station. I myself extracted the footage from the server. The CCTV Camera was installed by the government in the market of Defence Colony, New Delhi. I had not taken the permission for taking the CCTV Footage from any government authority..." The prosecution has failed to examine the concerned officer or official who was maintaining and controlling the server and has failed to furnish any explanation for the same. How the Investigation Officer had direct access to the server to take the CCTV footage and not approach through the protocol is not explained by the prosecution. Mere filing of the certificate under section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act by him does not suffice as it was required to be issued by the person in control of the computer system from which electronic evidence is produced and must attest that the evidence is accurate and reliable. This requirement is non negotiable and absolute. (Reliance can be placed upon Anwar P.V. v . P.K.Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473 and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1).
17. Also Pen Drive (Ex.P-3) has not been sent to the FSL for verification whether or not accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad is visible in Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. Digitally signed NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA FIR No. 317/2014. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Date:
Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. SHARMA 2025.12.15 15:24:28 +0530 PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 8 of 37 ::-
-:: 9 ::-
the same. Mr. Devender Kashyap (PW-2) has admitted that the CCTV footage was not taken in his presence but only played to him by the police. He has deposed that "...Police did not recover/collect the recording of CCTV Footage in my presence...." Also, it is admitted during the arguments that when the footage was played in the Court, it was hazy and the facial lines of the alleged culprits were not defined. The person visible in the said footage was not clear and was not identified as accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad by the PWs. Therefore, the CCTV footage relied upon by the prosecution cannot be taken into consideration for convicting accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad.
Weapon of offence
18. As regards the weapon of offence i.e. danda, the prosecution has not been able to prove the same properly. The danda produced in the Court during the evidence was in open and unsealed condition, as elaborated in the evidence of the prosecution. No explanation has been furnished by the prosecution as to why the same was not converted into pullanda and sealed by the Investigation Officer when it was allegedly taken into possession.
19. Mr. Swapan Kumar Pradhan (PW-1), from the danda had been snatched by accused, has deposed as follows:
"... At about 10.30 pm on that night, when I was standing near Citi Bank ATM, two boys came and snatched away my danda. They went towards Paan shop and I followed them. I heard someone getting hit. I snatched back my danda... That danda was between 3 feet to 5 feet in length and it was a solid danda.... I cannot say if the danda shown to me is the same which was seized from my possession by police.... I cannot admit or deny the Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. NIVEDITA by Digitally signed NIVEDITA FIR No. 317/2014. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Date: Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. SHARMA 2025.12.15 15:24:35 +0530 PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 9 of 37 ::-
-:: 10 ::-
suggestion that the danda shown to me is the same which was seized from my possession by police.... On seeing the same the witness submits that it does not belongs to me... On seeing the same witness submits that I am unable to identify both the accused persons, as well as, danda.... Vol. I am not in a position to identify the danda..."
20. Mr. Devender Kashyap (PW-2), who is not an eye witness, has identified the danda produced in the Court stating that it belongs to Guard Swapan Kumar Pradhan. He has deposed that "...It is correct that I had never seen the alleged danda physically, but I know that the security guard used to the said danda. I identified the danda Ex. P-2 on the basis that danda used in the present office was taken from the guards who work in the market and I have seen their dandas in their hands while they perform their duties...."
21. Mr. Lalit Kashyap (PW-4) has deposed that "...I had noticed one long things either danda or iron rod. Vol., images were not clear to me in the mobile phone. Total length of the weapon was about 3 feet. It was like a danda which police official used to keep/possess during duty... At this stage, one Wooden Danda having length about 5 feet and also having slip upon which particulars of the case and Mad Number is written with blue ink, same is shown to the witness on saying the same, witness states that I am unable to identify the danda... Danda brought by the MHC(M) in open condition is shown to the witness and witness submits that it is the same danda which was used by accused Manav to cause injury...."
22. Mr. Dharmender Kashyap (PW-6) has deposed that "...The danda was about 4 feet. At this stage, the danda in opened condition brought by MHC(M) which is shown to the witness. On seeing the Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 317/2014. ANIL Date:
Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. SHARMA 2025.12.15 15:24:42 +0530 PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 10 of 37 ::-
-:: 11 ::-
same, witness states that it was not used in the crime by the accused...."
23. Ct. Jitender (PW-10) has deposed that "...The said guard handed over a danda of 4½ feet to IO..."
24. It is clear from the evidence led by the prosecution that the alleged weapon of offence i.e. "danda" was in unsealed condition when it was produced in the Court and put to the above mentioned prosecution witnesses. There is no explanation furnished by the prosecution as to why the alleged weapon of offence i.e. "danda" was not sealed when it was taken into possession by the police. Therefore, there is no authenticity regarding the same alleged weapon of offence and the one produced in the Court being the same.
25. It is relevant to mention here that the alleged weapon of offence i.e. "danda" was neither produced before the doctors to ascertain whether or not the alleged injury could be caused by the same nor it was sent to the FSL to ascertain whether or not it had any finger prints of the accused persons or blood of the injured.
26. Further, the description and details of the alleged weapon of offence i.e. "danda" used in the commission of the alleged offence has been given differently by the above mentioned prosecution witnesses. PW-1 from whom the alleged weapon of offence i.e. "danda" was snatched by the accused for use in the commission of the offence did not identify the "danda" produced in the Court.
Digitally signed by NIVEDITANIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 317/2014. SHARMA 2025.12.15 15:24:49 Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. +0530 PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 11 of 37 ::-
-:: 12 ::-
Even PW-4, on whom the "danda' was used, has not identified the same. Interestingly, PW-2, who had physically not seen the "danda", has identified it. The contradictions in the evidence of the above stated prosecution witnesses in respect of the description and details including the length of the "danda" has not been explained by the prosecution due to which the prosecution version in respect of the alleged weapon of offence i.e. "danda" appears doubtful and cannot be relied upon. It cannot be considered that the alleged weapon of offence i.e. "danda" produced in the Court is the same which was used in the commission of the alleged offence by the accused.
Medical evidence and FSL reports
27. As regards the nature of injury suffered by victim Mr. Lalit Kashyap (PW-4), it may be observed that Dr. Naren (PW-5) has proved the X-ray report prepared by Dr. Aparna Juneja, who has left the services of the hospital and who had given the opinion 'No bone injury was found'. It may be mentioned that Dr. Aparna Juneja was not produced nor examined and the nature of injury suffered by Mr. Lalit Kashyap (PW-4) cannot be taken into consideration and has to be held 'Simple Injury'. Further, Mr. Rajender Singh, Record Clerk, AIIMS Trauma Centre (PW-7) who has proved the MLC of patient Lalit Kashyap (Ex. PW-7/A) wherein it has been opined the nature of injury was 'Grievous' caused by blunt weapon.
28. Dr. Rakesh Kumar (PW-11) has deposed that "...It is correct that no visible injury as well as no wound is mentioned on the MLC. It is correct that mild injury does not cover under the definition of Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 317/2014. ANIL Date:
Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. SHARMA 2025.12.15 15:24:56 PS : Defence Colony. +0530 State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 12 of 37 ::-
-:: 13 ::-
grievous hurt..."
29. It is clear from the evidence led by the prosecution that there is no basis or logic for opining the nature of injury of Mr. Lalit Kashyap as grievous. Therefore, the MLC cannot be taken into consideration and the nature of injury utmost can be considered as 'Simple'.
30. It is settled law that where the nature of injuries suffered by the victim has been proved by another doctor of Medical Record Clerk but not been proved by the concerned doctor who examined the patient/victim and gave opinion in respect of the nature of injuries, the same cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of conviction of the accused. In the absence of examination of a medical witness, the prosecution fails to establish that the alleged weapon was used in the commission of the offence.
31. The discharge summary of Mr. Lalit Kashyap (Ex. PW-11/A) which is prepared by Dr. Raman Mahalangikar has not been properly proved as the prosecution has failed to produce and examine him. Dr. Rakesh Kumar (PW-11) has only put an exhibit on the same in his evidence but he is not the author of the same and therefore, is not competent to prove the same.
32. It has been observed in the judgment reported as Amar Singh & Ors. v. The State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2020 SC 4894 while emphasizing the importance of eliciting the opinion of medical witness in such circumstances in the case of Kartarey and Ors. v. State of U.P. (1976) 1 SCC 172 as follows:
"We take this opportunity of emphasizing the importance of eliciting the opinion of the medical witness, who had Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 317/2014. ANIL Date:
Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. SHARMA 2025.12.15 15:25:04 PS : Defence Colony. +0530 State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 13 of 37 ::-
-:: 14 ::-
examined the injuries of the victim, more specifically on this point, for the proper administration of justice particularly in a case where injuries found are forensically of the same species, example stab wound, and the problem before of the Court is whether all or any those injuries could be caused with one or more than one weapon. It is the duty of the prosecution, and no less of the Court, to see that the alleged weapon of the offence, if available, is shown to the medical witness and his opinion invited as to whether all or any of the injuries on the victim could be caused with that weapon. Failure to do so may sometimes, cause aberration of the course of justice".
33. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgment of State v. Kamlesh Bahadur, Crl.L.P. 519/2019 decided on 12.09.2023 set aside the conviction under section 308 of the IPC and converted the same to section 323 of the IPC. It was observed as follows :
"...In Ramesh V State 2010 (I) JCC 796, this Court altered the conviction from 308/34 to 323/34 by holding that assault was not premeditated and merely be- cause an injury was found on the head, it cannot be said that such an injury was caused with the intention to com- mit culpable homicide. In Sunder V State 2010 (1) JCC 700, this Court altered the conviction of the appellant from Section 308 to 323 IPC by holding that in order to prove offence under Section 308 IPC, prosecution was re- quired to prove that the injury was caused with such inten- tion or knowledge and under such circumstances that if it had caused death, the act of appellant would have amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In Raju @ Rajpal and others V State of Delhi 2014 (3) JCC 1894, this Court altered the conviction from Section 308 to 323/34 by holding that the nature of injuries were simple and injuries were not caused with the avowed ob- ject or knowledge to cause death. In Ashok Kumar and an- other V State of Delhi Crl. Appeal No. 17/2011 decided on 20.02.2015, this Court altered the conviction of Section 308 IPC to Section 323/34 IPC and held that injuries were opined by the doctor as simple caused by a blunt object. Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. Digitally signed by NIVEDITA FIR No. 317/2014. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL Date:
Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. SHARMA 2025.12.15 15:25:10 PS : Defence Colony. +0530 State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 14 of 37 ::-
-:: 15 ::-
Nature of injuries is not such which will be sufficient to indicate that the appellants had any intention or knowl- edge that by this act they would have caused death of complainant. In Pawan Chaddha V State Criminal Appeal 640/2011 decided on 27.01.2016 by this Court, the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 308 and Section 323/34 IPC while the co-accused were held guilty and convicted under Section 323/34 IPC... There was no premeditation. The entire incident took place on the spur of the moment. Injuries were opined to be simple. The ingredients of section 308 IPC are not at- tracted and the case falls within the ambit and scope of section 323 IPC..."
34. The alleged weapon of offence i.e. Danda was not sent to FSL to ascertain whether or not it had the finger prints of accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad and blood of the victim and no explanation for the same has been furnished by the prosecution.
35. Ms. Sunita Gupta, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL (PW-8) has proved the FSL reports (Ex. PW-8/A and Ex. PW-8/B) which are in respect of Gauze cloth piece and blood stained Gauze and same do not connect accused Shafiq Ahmad to the alleged offence in any manner. She has deposed that "...Non reaction of grouping/origin the blood in my report may be due to improper preservation, collection and storage..."
36. The medical and forensic evidence led by the prosecution does not inspire confidence and cannot be relied upon. The possibility of the exhibits being not properly preserved, collected or stored cannot be ruled out. The alleged injury on the person of Mr. Lalit Kashyap being simple also cannot be ruled. Also, there is nothing incriminating on the record in respect of the medical and forensic Digitally signed by NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 317/2014. ANIL Date:
SHARMA 2025.12.15 Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. 15:25:17 +0530 PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 15 of 37 ::-
-:: 16 ::-
evidence to connect accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad to the alleged offences.
Evidence qua accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad
37. Mr. Swapan Kumar Pradhan (PW-1) has deposed that "...I cannot identify those two boys as I had seen them only for few seconds on the day of occurrence... I cannot say if the accused Shafiq present in court and shown to me is one of those two boys who had snatched my danda and assaulted the paan vendor... Attention of the witness is drawn towards both the accused persons namely Manav @ Mogly and Shafiq Ahmed, present in the Court today. On seeing them, the witness submits that both are not known to me. (Vol. They were not present at the time of the incident and no one from them had snatched the danda from my possession)..."
38. Mr. Devender Kashyap (PW-2) has correctly identified accused namely Mr. Shafiq Ahmed. However, the witness was not present at the spot when the alleged incident and has deposed that he has identified the accused after seeing the CCTV footage. He has deposed that "...On 30.11.2014, I went to a paan shop in Kotla Mubarakpur where we met Shafiq. Prior to that, the sub inspector had shown me CCTV footage from which I identified the assailants as they used to keep coming to my shop and used to quarrel with my brother for credit... The aforesaid clipping of the incident was forwarded in a pen drive from the system by the police in my presence and I had identified both the accused persons before police at that time..."
Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL Date:
Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. SHARMA 2025.12.15 15:25:24 FIR No. 317/2014. +0530 Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC.
PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 16 of 37 ::-
-:: 17 ::-
39. Mr. Lalit Kashyap (PW-4) has deposed that "....Witness put finger towards the co-accused who is present in the court today, by disclosing his name namely Haseeb, S/o Rafiq...." He has given a wrong name of accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad as Haseeb son of Rafiq. He was cross examined by the prosecution wherein he has deposed that "...It is incorrect to suggest that accused Manav @ Mogli (exempted from his appearance) and accused Shafiq Ahmed present in the court had abused me and extended threats to me as stated by me to police in my statement.... It is correct that accused Shafiq had not caused any injury to me. It is also correct that accused Shafiq had not given beatings...."
40. Mr. Dharmender Kashyap (PW-6) has deposed that "...Witness further put finger towards other accused saying that he is Asif...." He has retracted from his previous statement made to the police.
41. It is important to mention here that Mr. Swapan Kumar Pradhan (PW-1), Mr. Lalit Kashyap (PW-4) and Mr. Dharmender Kashyap (PW-6) were hostile as they had resiled from their previous statements and had been cross examined by the prosecution.
42. The injured Mr. Lalit Kashyap (PW-4) has completely absolved accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad by firstly furnishing a wrong name and then denying that he has committed any offence against him.
43. It is clear from the evidence of Mr. Lalit Kashyap (PW-4) that he has not been able to support the prosecution case as his version is not consistent with the statement given by him to the police under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. He has infact not only failed to identify the identity of accused Shafiq Ahmad by his name and identified Digitally signed Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA FIR No. 317/2014. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Date:
Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. SHARMA 2025.12.15 15:25:30 +0530 PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 17 of 37 ::-
-:: 18 ::-
him as Haseeb son of Rafiq. He has not identified the alleged weapon of offence i.e. "danda" as he has stated that Danda was about 3 feet long but it is not in the evidence of other witnesses as well as in his own evidence that the danda was about 5 feet. Even, the clothes worn by him at the time of incident were not completely produced in the Court as the belt which was worn by him was not produced along with the pant. He has admitted in the cross examination that accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmed has caused no injury to him nor given him any beatings.
44. It is clear from the evidence led by the prosecution that Mr. Swapan Kumar Pradhan (PW-1) has neither identified accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad nor the alleged weapon of offence. Mr. Devender Kashyap (PW-2) is a hearsay witness and he has identified accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad and the alleged weapon of offence on the basis of CCTV footage on which reliance cannot be placed. He has admitted that "...It is correct that in the CCTV Footage/video Ex. P-3 the accused Shafique was visible standing and moving around, but he was not involved in beating...." Mr. Lalit Kashyap (PW-4) has identified accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad by a wrong name and denied that he committed any offence. He has also failed to identify the alleged weapon of offence. The most material witness (PW-4) has not deposed anything incriminating against accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad. Mr. Dharmender Kashyap (PW-6) has identified accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad by a wrong name and has failed to identify the alleged weapon of offence. The discrepancies in the evidence have not been explained by the prosecution due to which accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad merits to be acquitted. It is again relevant to mention that Mr. Swapan Kumar Pradhan (PW-1), Mr. Lalit Kashyap Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. Digitally signed NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA FIR No. 317/2014. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Date:
Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. SHARMA 2025.12.15 15:25:36 +0530 PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 18 of 37 ::-
-:: 19 ::-
(PW-4) and Mr. Dharmender Kashyap (PW-6) had resiled from their earlier statements to the police and were cross examined by the prosecution.
45. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment reported as Suraj Mal versus The 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."
46. Similar view was also taken in the judgment reported as Madari @ Dhiraj & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2004(1) C.C. Cases 487.
47. 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.
48. 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 Sessions Case Number : 125/2017.
NIVEDITA Digitally signed FIR No. 317/2014. ANIL by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. SHARMA Date: 2025.12.15 15:25:45 +0530 PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 19 of 37 ::-
-:: 20 ::-
upon the judgment of the hon'ble Delhi High Court reported as Ashok Narang v. State, 2012 (2) LRC 287 (Del).
49. 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. Lalit Kashyap (PW-4) and Mr. Dharmender Kashyap (PW-6) have not deposed anything incriminating against accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad. Even otherwise, no useful purpose would be served by adopting any hyper technical approach in the issue.
50. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad is guilty of the charged offences punishable under section 308/34, 323/34, 506 (II)/34 of the IPC that on 29.11.2014 at about 10:45 pm in front of Citi Bank ATM, Main Market, Defence Colony, New Delhi, the accused persons intentionally assaulted Mr. Lalit Kashyap son Mr. Prem Kumar and the accused Mr. Manav @ Mogly gave a danda blow on the head of Mr. Lalit Kashyap, causing fracture of his skull with such intention or knowledge that if this assault by them had caused death of Mr. Lalit Kashyap, they would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the accused persons further assaulted Mr. Dharmender Kashyap voluntarily causing him hurt and also threatened both of them with death.
51. Therefore, there is nothing brought forth in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to indicate that accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad has committed any offence against Mr. Lalit Kashyap (PW-4) and Digitally signed by NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL Date:
FIR No. 317/2014. SHARMA 2025.12.15 15:25:52 Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. +0530 PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 20 of 37 ::-
-:: 21 ::-
Mr. Dharmender Kashyap (PW-6). It appears to be a case of mistaken identity as even his name has been wrongly disclosed and his role in the commission of the alleged offences has not been proved.
52. As regards the common intention of accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad with co-accused Mr. Manav @ Mogly, it may be observed that mere alleged presence of accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad at the scene of crime does not automatically mean that they shared common intention. The prosecution has failed to prove that he had a prior arrangement or that they participated in the crime with the intention to commit it together. Proof of pre-arranged plan or concert of action is crucial. In the absence of the same, accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad merits to be acquitted. (Reliance can be placed upon Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, 1955 AIR 216: 1955 SCR (1) 1083, Murlidhar v. State of Rajasthan, 2005 AIR SCW 4984 and Kehar Singh @ Ors. V. State (Delhi Admn.) 1988 SCR(3) 1102).
No direct, indirect or circumstantial evidence
53. It is clear from the above discussion that the prosecution has failed to show that the accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad has committed the alleged offences. There is neither any direct nor indirect nor circumstantial evidence against the accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad.
54. In the judgment reported as Kishore Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1990, Supreme Court 2140 it has been observed that all circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must be fully established. Facts so established must be consistent Digitally signed Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 317/2014. ANIL Date:
Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. SHARMA 2025.12.15 15:25:58 +0530 PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 21 of 37 ::-
-:: 22 ::-
with hypothesis of guilt of accused. In a case of circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully and cogently established. All the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The proved circumstances should be of conclusive nature and define tendency, unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. They should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. The circumstance must be satisfactorily established and the proved circumstance must bring home the offences to the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is not necessary that each circumstance by itself be conclusive but cumulatively must form unbroken chain of events leading to the proof of the guilt of the accused. If those circumstances of some of them can be explained by any of the reasonable hypothesis then the accused must have the benefit of hypothesis. In assessing the evidence imaginary possibilities have no role to play. What is to be considered are ordinary human probabilities. In other words when there is no direct witness to the commission of murder and the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied on must be fully established. The chain of events furnished by the circumstances should be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. If any of the circumstances proved in a case are consistent with the innocence of the accused. If any of the circumstances proved in case are consistent with the innocence of the accused of the chain of the continuity of the circumstances is broken, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. In assessing the evidence to find these Digitally signed NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Date:
FIR No. 317/2014. SHARMA 2025.12.15 15:26:05 +0530 Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC.
PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 22 of 37 ::-
-:: 23 ::-
principles, it is necessary to distinguish between facts which may be called primary or basic facts on one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them, on the other. In regard to the proof of basic or primary facts, the Court has to Judge the evidence in the ordinary way and in appreciation of the evidence in proof of those basic facts or primary facts, there is no scope for the application of the doctrine of benefit of doubt. The Court has to consider the evidence and decide whether the evidence proves a particular fact or not. Whether that fact leads to the inference of the guilt of the accused or not is another aspect and in dealing with this aspect of problem, the doctrine of benefit would apply and an inference of guilt can be drawn only if the proved facts are inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and are consistent only with his guilt. There is long distance between may be true and must be true. The prosecution has to travel all the way to establish fully all the chain of events which should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and those circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude all hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved by the prosecution. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far consistent and complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all probability the act must have been done by the accused and the accused alone.
55. In assessing the evidence imaginary possibilities have no role to play. What is to be considered are ordinary human probabilities. In other words when there is no direct witness to the commission of Digitally signed Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA ANIL FIR No. 317/2014. Date:
SHARMA 2025.12.15 Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. 15:26:11 +0530 PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 23 of 37 ::-
-:: 24 ::-
the murder and the case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied on must be fully established. The chain of events furnished by the circumstances should be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. If any of the circumstances proved in a case are consistent with the innocence of the accused of the chain of the continuity of the circumstances is broken, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
56. Before accusing an innocent person of the commission of a grave crime like the one punishable under S.307 of the IPC an honest, sincere and dispassionate investigation has to be made and to feel sure that the person suspected of the crime alone was responsible to commit the offence. Indulging in free fabrication of the record is a deplorable conduct on the part of an investigating officer which undermines the public confidence reposed in the investigating agency. Therefore, greater care and circumspection are needed by the investigating agency in this regard. It is time that the investigating agencies evolve new and scientific investigating methods, taking aid of rapid scientific development in the field of investigation. It is also the duty of the State i.e Central or State Governments to organise periodical refresher courses for the investigating officers to keep them abreast of the latest scientific development in the art of investigation and the march of law so that the real offender would be brought to book and the innocent would not be exposed to prosecution.
57. In the judgment reported as Vijay Thakur Vs State of Himachal Pardesh, 2014 X AD (S.C) 89, it has been observed that "It is to be Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA FIR No. 317/2014. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. SHARMA Date: 2025.12.15 15:26:18 +0530 PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 24 of 37 ::-
-:: 25 ::-
emphasized at this stage that except the so-called recoveries, there is no other circumstances worth the name which has been proved against these two appellants. It is a case of blind murder. There are no eyewitnesses. Conviction is based on the circumstantial evidence. In such a case, complete chain of events has to be established pointing out the culpability of the accused person."
58. It is clear from the record of the present case that the prosecution has not been able to assign any criminal role to the accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad, as discussed above. How and why he had been arrested in the present case has not been logically explained by the prosecution. Merely on the basis of some alleged information, which is also not proved, the accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad was apprehended, his fundamental rights violated and he has been made to undergo the rigours of a criminal trial. There is no direct or indirect or circumstantial evidence against him. It is also clear that the recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the accused is also not proved.
59. The recovery at the instance of the accused is of no help to the prosecution in view of the evidence discussed above. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment reported as Deva Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1999 Crl.L.J. 265 where the hon'ble Supreme Court observed that merely because a knife is alleged to have been recovered at the instance of the accused would not lead to a conclusion that the accused was the perpetrator of the crime of murder.
60. It is very clear from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA FIR No. 317/2014. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. SHARMA Date: 2025.12.15 15:26:23 +0530 PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 25 of 37 ::-
-:: 26 ::-
the recovery of the weapon of offence and its alleged use in the commission of offence is tainted.
No independent witness associated
61. It is clear from all the witnesses of investigation that no public or independent witness has been associated in the investigation of the case, at the time of arrest of the accused and at the time of recovery of the alleged weapon of offence. The police witnesses of investigation have admitted the same.
62. It is clear from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the independent public persons were available at the time of recovery of alleged weapon of offence as well as at the scene of crime when the alleged offence was committed. It is also clear that they were neither joined in the investigation nor any action was taken in case of their refusal to join the investigation. It is apparent that the police has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 100 (4) of the Cr.P.C. Reliance can be placed upon the judgments reported as State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Ramparkash & ors., 1989 Criminal L.J 1585; Pawan Kumar v. Delhi Administration, 1988 (2) RCR 421. The discovery in the presence of subordinate police officials from an open place is of no importance. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment reported as Harish Chander @ Billa, 1995 (2) CC Cases 503.
Investigation
63. It is clear on perusal of the record that there are several discrepancies and violations made by the police in the investigation. Apparently an innocent man has been falsely Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 317/2014. SHARMA 2025.12.15 15:26:30 Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. +0530 PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 26 of 37 ::-
-:: 27 ::-
implicated in the present case, as discussed above. Prosecution witnesses whose evidence was very material to the prosecution case have retracted from their earlier statements and have not supported the prosecution version.
64. Investigation Officer did not serve any notice on the persons present at the spot, which admittedly is a market area, to join the investigation. These very material witnesses have neither been cited as witnesses nor produced nor examined by the prosecution. Their evidence could have facilitated the Court in adjudicating the matter. He did not get the finger prints lifted from the weapon of offence. No independent witnesses have been examined. The danda was not produced before the doctor for examination and opinion. The danda was not even converted into a pullanda and sealed nor it was sent to the FSL for examination. The CCTV footage was not sent to the FSL for examination.
65. The prosecution has failed to examine some very material witnesses and this lapse gives a severe blow to the prosecution case.
66. By not citing, producing and examining the independent persons, the prosecution has left out some very material evidence which may have been of some help to the prosecution in this case against the accused.
67. It has been observed in the judgment reported as Kishore Chand v.
State of H.P., AIR 1990 SC 2140 that undoubtedly, henious crimes are committed under great secrecy and that investigation of a crime Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. NIVEDITA by Digitally signed NIVEDITA FIR No. 317/2014. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Date: Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. SHARMA 2025.12.15 15:26:37 +0530 PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 27 of 37 ::-
-:: 28 ::-
is a difficult and tedious task. However, from the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that the Investigating Officer has taken the accused for ride and trampled upon his fundamental personal liberty and lugged him in the capital offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC by freely fabricating evidence against the innocent. The liberty of a citizen is preciousand its deprivation shall be only in accordance with law. Before accusing an innocent person of the commission of a grave crime like the one punishable under S.302 IPC an honest, sincere and dispassionate investigation has to be made and to feel sure that the person suspected of the crime alone was responsible to commit the offence. Indulging in free fabrication of the record is a deplorable conduct on the part of an investigating officer which undermines the public confidence reposed in the investigating agency. Therefore, greater care and circumspection are needed by the investigating agency in this regard. It is time that the investigating agencies evolve new and scientific investigating methods, taking aid of rapid scientific development in the field of investigation. It is also the duty of the State i.e Central or State Governments to organise periodical refresher courses for the investigating officers to keep them abreast of the latest scientific development in the art of investigation and the march of law so that the real offender would be brought to book and the innocent would not be exposed to prosecution.
68. The investigation conducted in the present case has been deposed by police witnesses. The documents have been proved by their authors and signatories to the same. However, there is nothing on the record which could show that the investigation has been Digitally signed NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 317/2014. SHARMA 2025.12.15 15:26:43 +0530 Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 28 of 37 ::-
-:: 29 ::-
conducted properly, fairly and impartially.
69. It must be mentioned here again that the prosecution story is unreliable and not worthy of credence, as discussed above. It would have been appropriate that these lapses were not committed considering the gravity of the case.
70. It is the actual crime which is important than the investigation.
Where the actual crime is being elaborated and proved in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, then the investigation becomes less important.
71. There are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or it has not been proved in evidence at trial, does it absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is logically in the negative as any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate the offence.
72. In the present case, the investigation is bad and shoddy. Medical documents have not been properly proved; recovery of weapon of offence appears manipulated and planted; witnesses have not supported the case; independent public witnesses have not been associated in the investigation; weapon of offence has not been sent to the FSL nor produced before the doctor; etc.. The investigation, in the present case, has not been conducted fairly and properly.
Mens rea and defence of the accused
73. Regarding the motive of crime, it may be observed that in a case Digitally signed Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 317/2014. ANIL Date:
Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. SHARMA 2025.12.15 15:26:50 +0530 PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 29 of 37 ::-
-:: 30 ::-
based on evidence, the existence of motive assumed significance though the absence of motive does not necessarily discredit the prosecution case, if the case stands otherwise established by other conclusive circumstances and the chain of evidence is so complete and is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the hypothesis of his innocence.
74. The motive has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances and such evidence should from one of the links to the chain of evidence. The proof of motive would only strengthen the prosecution case and fortify the Court in its ultimate conclusion but in the absence of any connecting evidence or link which would be sufficient in itself from the face of it, the accused cannot be convicted. Motives of men are often subjective, submerged and un- amenable to easy proof that courts have to go without clear evidence thereon if other clinching evidence exists. A motive is indicated to heighten the probability that the offence was committed by the person who was impelled by the motive but if the crime is alleged to have been committed for a particular motive, it is relevant to inquire whether the pattern of the crime fits in which the alleged motive.
75. In the present case, a story has been projected that the accused Mr. Shafiq Amad has committed the alleged offences. This version appears to be untrue as there is no reason why he would do so. No reason is shown by the prosecution as to why the accused would jeopardize his future. Admittedly there was no dispute or enmity between accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad and Mr. Lalit Kashyap as well as Mr. Dharmender Kashyap. Digitally signed by NIVEDITA NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 317/2014. SHARMA 2025.12.15 15:26:57 Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. +0530 PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 30 of 37 ::-
-:: 31 ::-
76. There is nothing on the record to show that accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad has committed the offences, as alleged by the prosecution. He is a mature man and capable of understanding the implications of his acts. He has completely denied committing the offence.
77. In the present case, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused did have a motive to commit the offence. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. However, there can be no sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged on its own facts. These observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts.
78. There does not appear to be any criminal intention and mens rea on the part of the accused.
79. In his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has stated that no public witness has deposed against him. Remaining witnesses are police officials who are interested witnesses.
80. There is no medical and forensic evidence against the accused.
There is no direct, indirect or circumstantial evidence against him. The recovery of the danda is also manipulated by the police, as Digitally signed Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 317/2014. ANIL Date:
Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. SHARMA 2025.12.15 15:27:02 +0530 PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 31 of 37 ::-
-:: 32 ::-
discussed above. It is also clear while discussing the evidence of the prosecution, as above, that the prosecution version is neither reliable nor believable.
81. In the judgment Partap v. The State of Uttar Pardesh, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 966 has reported that the burden is on the accused to establish a plea of self defence and that on the prosecution to prove its case. The burden on the accused is not as onerous as that which lies on the prosecution. While the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused can discharge his onus by establishing a mere preponderance of probability.
82. The defence of the accused although is not proved but considering the unreliable evidence of the prosecution which suffers from overwhelming contradictions and glaring inconsistencies, the prosecution version is neither believable nor reliable nor trust worthy.
83. The case of the prosecution has to stand of its own legs and is required to prove all its allegations against the accused and all the ingredients of the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused.
84. Therefore, as the prosecution version is unreliable and unbelievable that accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad had committed the alleged offences, the defence of the accused appears to be plausible that he has not committed any offence.
Digitally
signed by
NIVEDITA NIVEDITA
ANIL SHARMA
ANIL Date:
SHARMA 2025.12.15
Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. 15:27:09 +0530 FIR No. 317/2014.
Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC.
PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 32 of 37 ::-
-:: 33 ::-
FINAL CONCLUSION
85. The prosecution has failed to furnish any explanation in respect of the numerous inconsistencies and discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses of the prosecution. The inherent contradictions strike at the very root of the prosecution story making it unbelievable and improbable. In the instant case, the evidence and different statements of the witnesses of the prosecution suffer from such infirmities and the probabilities due to which the prosecution has come out with a story, which is highly improbable. The overwhelming contradictions are too major to be ignored and they strike a fatal blow to the prosecution version. In fact what emerges from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is that accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad has not committed the alleged offences.
86. Prosecution must lead positive evidence to give rise to inference beyond reasonable doubt that accused had committed the offences.
87. Since the evidence of the prosecution is neither reliable nor believable as there are overwhelming contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the conscience of this Court is completely satisfied that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge against accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad. The prosecution story does not inspire confidence and is not worthy of credence.
88. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are prerequisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under:
Digitally signedNIVEDITA by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. ANIL Date:
FIR No. 317/2014. SHARMA 2025.12.15 15:27:15 +0530 Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC.
PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 33 of 37 ::-
-:: 34 ::-
i. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established;
ii. The facts so established should be consistent onlywith the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; iii. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency;
iv. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and v. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
89. Applying the above principles of law to the facts of present case, it stands established that the accused had neither assaulted Mr. Lalit Kashyap along with co-accused Mr. Manav @ Mogly (since deceased) with a danda nor assaulted Mr. Dharmender Kashyap nor threatened them with death. There is no incriminating evidence against accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad. The gaps in the prosecution evidence, the several discrepancies in the evidence and other circumstances make it highly improbable that such incidents ever took place.
90. Consequently, no inference can be drawn that the accused is guilty of the charged offences as the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is unreliable and unworthy of credence.
91. Onus is always on the prosecution to prove and accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. Case of the prosecution is to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and cannot take support from Sessions Case Number : 125/2017.
FIR No. 317/2014. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. ANIL ANIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.12.15 PS : Defence Colony. 15:27:22 +0530 State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 34 of 37 ::-
-:: 35 ::-
weakness of case of defence. In case the evidence is read in totality and story projected by the prosecution is found to be improbable, prosecution case becomes liable to be rejected.
92. If the prosecution evidence is read and considered in totality of circumstances along with other material on record, in which offence is alleged to have been committed, the deposition does not inspire confidence and is unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances, no conviction can be based on such evidence. Prosecution has not disclosed true genesis of crime.
93. It is a case of attempt to culpable homicide which carries grave implication for accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad, if convicted. Therefore, for convicting any person for the said offence, the degree of proof has to be that of a high standard and not mere possibility of committing the said offence. In a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. The prosecution story does not inspire confidence and is not worthy of credence. The gaps in the prosecution evidence, the several discrepancies in the evidence and other circumstances make it highly improbable that such incidents ever took place.
94. The prosecution has failed to prove that it is accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad and none else who is culprit and has committed the alleged offences.
95. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that on 29.11.2014 at about 10:45 pm in front of Citi Bank ATM, Main Market, Defence Colony, New Delhi, accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad (facing trial) along Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. NIVEDITA Digitally signed by NIVEDITA FIR No. 317/2014. ANIL ANIL SHARMA Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. SHARMA Date: 2025.12.15 15:27:30 +0530 PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 35 of 37 ::-
-:: 36 ::-
with accused Mr. Manav @ Mogly (since deceased and the proceedings have abated against him) intentionally assaulted Mr. Lalit Kashyap son Mr. Prem Kumar and accused Mr. Manav @ Mogly gave a danda blow on the head of Mr. Lalit Kashyap, causing fracture of his skull with such intention or knowledge that if this assault by them had caused death of Mr. Lalit Kashyap, they would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the accused persons further assaulted Mr. Dharmender Kashyap voluntarily causing him hurt and also threatened both of them with death.
96. All the above facts indicate that there is no veracity in the prosecution case in respect of the offences of attempt to culpable homicide, causing simple hurt and extending threats of death by accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad and the accused merits to be acquitted for the offence punishable under section 308/34, 323/34 and 506 (II)/34 of the IPC.
97. 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 Mr. Shafiq Ahmad and he merits to be acquitted.
Final finding
98.It is clear from the above discussion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against accused Mr, Shafiq Ahmad.
99.Accordingly, accused Mr. Shafiq Ahmad is hereby acquitted of the Digitally signed NIVEDITA by NIVEDITA Sessions Case Number : 125/2017. ANIL ANIL SHARMA FIR No. 317/2014. Date:
SHARMA 2025.12.15 Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC. 15:27:37 +0530 PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 36 of 37 ::-
-:: 37 ::-
charges for the offences of attempt to culpable homicide, causing simple hurt and extending threats of death punishable under sections 308/34, 323/34 and 506 (II)/34 of the IPC.
100. Compliance of section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. is made in the order sheet of even date.
101. Case property be confiscated and be destroyed after expiry of period of limitation of appeal.
102. One copy of the judgment be given to the Chief Public Prosecutor for the State, as requested.
103. After the expiry of the period of limitation for appeal and completion of all the formalities, the file be consigned to record NIVEDITA Digitally signed room. ANIL by NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.12.15 15:27:44 +0530 Announced in the open Court (NIVEDITA ANIL SHARMA) on this 13 day of December, 2025. Principal District & Sessions Judge, th South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi. 13.12.2025.
*********************************************************** Sessions Case Number : 125/2017.
FIR No. 317/2014.
Under section 308/506/34 of the IPC.
PS : Defence Colony.
State versus Manav @ Mogly and another. -:: Page 37 of 37 ::-