Delhi District Court
State vs Manjit Singh on 19 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE
PRESIDED BY: MS. AKRITI MAHENDRU
Cr.C. No. 3504/2018
FIR No. 615/2014
PS: Ranjit Nagar
State vs. Manjit Singh
CNR No. DLWT02- 006928-2018
JUDGMENT
a) ID. No. of the case : 3504/2018
b) Date of Commission : 30.10.2014
of offence
c) Name of the : Sh. Rahul Katiyal
Complainant/ Informant. S/o Sh. Naresh Katiyal
d) Name of the Accused, : Manjit Singh S/o Sh. Trilok
his parentage and address Singh R/o A-75, DDA Flats,
New Ranjit Nagar, New
Delhi.
e) Offences complained : 324/506 of IPC
of
f) Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
g) Final Order. : Acquitted.
h) Date of such order. : 19.05.2025.
i) Date of institution. : 21.05.2018.
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall dispose of the prosecution emanating from the case FIR no. 615/2014 registered under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at PS Ranjit Nagar.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant and the accused are neighbours with their flats facing Digitally signed by Akriti Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.05.19 16:39:33 +0530 State Vs. Manjit Singh FIR No. 615/2014 Page No. 1 of 20 each other's. On 30.10.2014, the accused while standing in the balcony of his flat used abusive language and said that ' tumne apne chatt par kamre ke bahar light kyo jala rakhi hai?' (why is light installed outside the room on the terrace turned on?) upon which the complainant's father asked him not to use abusive language as the neighbors were asleep and that he should come downstairs to talk. The complainant went downstairs, however, the accused came with one sword and hit him on the left hand due to which the complainant sustained injury. In this backdrop, the instant case FIR was registered and the imputed offences investigated into. Upon completion of investigation, a final report in the form of chargesheet under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was forwarded to this Court arraying Manjit Singh as an accused.
3. After taking cognizance of the offences complained of in the instant case FIR, the accused was summoned vide order dated 06.07.2018. Pursuant to his appearance, a copy of the charge-sheet along with accompanying documents was supplied to the Accused in compliance of the provisions of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Thereafter, upon hearing the prosecution as well as the defence and after perusal of the material available on record, charge for offences punishable under sections 324/506 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were framed against the accused on 29.10.2020. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove the case against the accused, prosecution examined 07 witnesses in its favour.
5. The complainant was examined as PW1 by the prosecution. He Digitally signed by Akriti Mahendru Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.05.19 16:39:39 +0530 State Vs. Manjit Singh FIR No. 615/2014 Page No. 2 of 20 deposed that, on 30.10.2014 at around 11:00 P.M., he along with his friend was sitting on the terrance of his house. On some issue regarding the light, the accused, who was residing across his residence, started abusing his father and him. It is deposed that the complainant's father asked him to come downstairs and talk upon which both of them went downstairs. The accused came downstairs brandishing a sword in his hand with which he attacked the complainant which resulted in injury between his index finger and the thumb of his left hand. Upon witnessing this, the father of the complainant invoked police assistance who then reached to the spot and took the witness to Acharya Bhikshu Hospital, Moti Nagar. At the hospital, the doctors referred the complainant to RML Hospital where his surgery was conducted which involved 8/9 stitches on his left hand. The police recorded his statement vide Ex. PW1/A. 5.1. Ld. APP for the State sought permission to put leading questions to the witness and to cross-examine him as he was not disclosing the complete facts, the same was granted. In his cross-examination by the Ld. APP for the State, the witness admitted that he had shown the place of incident to the police and the police prepared the site plan (Ex.
PW1/B) at his instance. The witness admitted his signatures on the arrest memo (Ex. PW1/C) as well as on the personal search memo of the accused (Ex. PW1/D). PW1 identified the accused during his dock identification before this Court, though failed to remember if the accused had threatened him of dire consequences and to implicate him in false cases due to a considerable lapse of time. The witness was then confronted with his supplementary statement (PW1/X1) where it is so recorded. The witness denied any knowledge of seizure of the weapon of offence (i.e. sword) by the police in his presence. The witness was Digitally signed by Akriti Mahendru Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.05.19 16:39:44 +0530 State Vs. Manjit Singh FIR No. 615/2014 Page No. 3 of 20 then confronted with his statement (PW1/X2) where it is so recorded and deposed that he could not say whether the accused got the sword recovered from his house in his presence or not as he was in the hospital. The witness admitted that the seizure memo Ex. PW1/E bears his signature, however, on production of the case property (sword), the witness failed to identify the same. He testified that he could not say whether it was the same sword which was used by the accused at the time of the incident or not and categorically denied the suggestion that he was intentionally not identifying the sword to save the accused.
5.2. PW1 was also cross-examined summarily by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. In his cross-examination, PW1 did not remember whether he had disclosed the particulars of his friend who was present with him at the time of the alleged incident to the police or not. The witness conceded that neither he nor his father had any dispute with the accused prior to this incident and admitted that the quarrel had started on the issue of light. He deposed that other local residents were present at the spot at the time of the incident but does not know if the IO joined any one of them during investigation into the alleged incident in his presence or not. PW1 deposed that the distance between his house and the house of the accused was about 10-12 meters and that he along with his father met the accused somewhere in the middle of both the houses and that their neighbors had reached the spot after the incident. The memory of the witness eluded him in recalling the exact number of documents he had signed during investigation, however, deposed that none of them was in blank when his signatures were obtained on them.
PW1 further deposed that the police officials never visited his house after the incident, however, he was called to the PS on one occasion. The witness admitted that the incident had occurred in the heat of the Digitally signed by Akriti Mahendru Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.05.19 16:39:49 +0530 State Vs. Manjit Singh FIR No. 615/2014 Page No. 4 of 20 moment and that they have been living peacefully as neighbors even since the incident.
6. The father of the complainant, Sh. Naresh Katiyal, was examined as PW2 by the prosecution. He deposed that the incident in question occurred in the year 2014 at about 12:00 midnight when he heard the accused abusing his family. PW2 deposed that he told him not to abuse and told him to come downstairs. The witness went downstairs along with his son (PW1) whereas, the accused came carrying a sword with which he struck PW1 which resulted in a severe injury on his left palm. PW2 deposed that he then immediately called the PCR at 100 number. PCR reached the spot and took PW1 to Acharya Bhikshu Hospital and from there he was shifted to RML hospital. Police officials recovered the sword from the possession of the accused from the spot. The witness deposed that was made to sign certain documents prepared by the police officials. The witness correctly identified the accused during his dock identification as well as the case property (i.e. sword) upon seeing which, the witness identified it as the sword which was used at the time of the incident.
6.2. PW2 was also cross-examined at length by the Ld. counsel for the accused. In his cross-examination, PW2 testified that the accused has been his neighbour for the past 15 years and conceded that they have had no issue prior to this incident, not to mention volunteered that no issue has arisen ever since the incident either as his wife is is bed ridden suffering from serious depression. The witness testified that more than 20 persons had gathered on the spot at the time of the incident but the police had not recorded statement of any of them in his presence. The witness admitted that the incident had occurred at the Digitally signed by Akriti Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.05.19 16:39:56 +0530 State Vs. Manjit Singh FIR No. 615/2014 Page No. 5 of 20 spur of the moment and the accused harboured no personal grudges against him prior to the incident. He deposed that the case property was taken to the police station by the police and later seized in the police station and thereafter, the IO retained the seal and no handing over memo was prepared.
7. Ct. Dinesh Kumar was examined by the prosecution as PW3. He deposed that, in the intervening night of 29/30.10.2014, while he was posted as a Constable in PS Ranjit Nagar, at about 12:15 A.M., IO SI Jagdish received a call regarding sword attack on a person at A-75, DDA Flats, Ranjit Nagar, Delhi. He along with IO went to the spot, however, they neither found the PCR caller nor any injured. Upon enquiry, IO came to know that the PCR has already taken the injured to Acharya Bhikshu Hospital. Thereafter, the witness testified that they went to the hospital from where they learnt that the complainant was admitted in the hospital vide MLC No. 6646, however, he was referred to Ram Manohar Lohia hospital due to the nature of his injury. Thereafter, he along with IO went to Ram Manohar Lohia hospital where they found the complainant admitted. The complainant's statement was recorded after the doctor declared him fit to give statement upon which the IO prepared a rukka upon it and handed it over to him for registration of the instant case FIR. The witness deposed that, upon registration of FIR, he reached the spot and handed over the copy of case FIR along with the original rukka to the IO. The complainant was also present there who identified the accused as the person responsible for inflicting the injury upon him. The accused was then apprehended and inquired about the incident to which, not only he admitted his involvement, but also took them to his house and got recovered the weapon of offence, i.e. the sword, from under the Digitally signed by Akriti Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.05.19 16:40:01 +0530 State Vs. Manjit Singh FIR No. 615/2014 Page No. 6 of 20 mattress of the bed. The witness deposed that the complainant had also identified the weapon of offence before the IO. IO put the sword on a white cloth and prepared a pullanda and sealed it with the seal of RTNGR-II. The witness deposed that the IO, thereafter, prepared the identification memo and seizure memo of the sword vide memo already Ex. PW1/E which was then handed over to him. The IO prepared the site plan and arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/C. Personal search of the accused was conducted by the IO vide memo Ex. PW1/D. The accused was however released on police bail inasmuch as the offences complained of against him were bailable in nature. The witness testified they then returned to the PS along with the case property which stood deposited in Malkhana. IO recorded his statement and discharged him.
7.1. PW3 was cross-examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. In his cross-examination, he, inter alia, deposed that he does not know anything about the DD entry regarding the incident. The witness deposed that 4-5 public persons were gathered at the spot, though failed to remember their names from whom the IO had made inquiries at the spot. They stayed at the spot for about 10 minutes before they left for the hospital. He testified that he had not seen the IO kit with the IO on that particular day and that the IO recorded only the statement of PW2 and not of any public persons (04 in number) present at the spot. The witness conceded that he did not offer his search either to the IO or to any public person before entering the house of the accused, nor did the IO request any public person to join before searching the house of the accused. The witness did not remember if there were blood stains on the sword or not at the time of its recovery.
The witness testified that the IO handed over him the seal after sealing Digitally signed by Akriti Mahendru Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.05.19 16:40:07 +0530 State Vs. Manjit Singh FIR No. 615/2014 Page No. 7 of 20 the sword which was returned the day next, though did not remember whether the IO had prepared the seal handing over memo or not. The witness admitted that he did not make any arrival entry in the PS but submitted that the IO might have knowledge in that regard. PW3 denied the following suggestions, namely- that he was deposing falsely as the sealing cloth was brought by PW2; or that he never joined the investigation; or that he never visited either the place of the incident or the hospital; or that no recovery was effected at the instance of the accused; and that he was deposing at the instance of the IO.
8. IO/SI Jagdish Prasad (Retired) was examined by the prosecution as PW4. He, inter alia, deposed that, on 30.10.2014, while he was posted as an SI in PS Ranjit Nagar, upon receiving DD No.3A, he along with PW3/Ct. Dinesh reached the spot, i.e. A-60, DDA Flats, New Ranjit Nagar, Delhi where they found neither the injured nor any eye witness. Upon being informed by the Duty Officer that the injured has been taken to Acharya Bhikshu Hospital, the witness deposed that they went to the said hospital from where they discovered that the PW1/complainant had been shifted to RML hospital. The witness deposed that he collected MLC No.6646/14 of PW1/complainant. After they reached RML hospital, the witness testified that he recorded the statement of PW1/complainant vide Ex. PW1/A. He then deposed to have prepared a tehrir upon it vide Ex. PW1/A and handed it over to PW3/Ct. Dinesh for getting the instant case FIR registered. PW3/Ct. Dinesh returned to the spot upon getting the instant case FIR registered and handed over original rukka and a copy of the FIR to him. The witness testified that PW1/complainant was discharged from the hospital and thereafter, they all returned to the spot where the witness prepared the site plan at the instance of PW1 vide Ex. PW1/B. The Digitally signed by Akriti Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.05.19 16:40:11 +0530 State Vs. Manjit Singh FIR No. 615/2014 Page No. 8 of 20 witness deposed that the accused also came to the spot where he was identified by PW1/complainant. The witness then interrogated the accused and arrested him vide memo Ex. PW1/C. The personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex. PW1/D. Thereafter, accused took him to his house and got recovered the weapon of offence (i.e. sword) kept under the mattress ( gadda). Thereafter, the witness deposed to have measured the sword and prepared its pullanda which was sealed with the seal - RTNGR-I and seized vide memo Ex. PW1/E. The witness testified that he handed over the seal to PW3/Ct. Dinesh after its use. The witness then, released the accused on police bail, recorded supplementary statement of PW1 and statement of PW2, thereafter, returned to the PS and deposited the case property in the Malkhana. In the end, the witness deposed that he discharged PW3/Ct. Dinesh Kumar after recording his statement in the instant case FIR. PW4 identified the accused during his dock identification before this Court.
9. PW4 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. In his cross-examination, PW4, inter alia, testified that he received the DD entry at about 12:00-12:13 A.M. and the Duty Officer had marked the investigation of the case to him, though pleaded ignorance if the SHO had entrusted its investigation to him or not. The witness however deposed that no public witness was present when they reached the spot. The witness conceded that he had not recorded any entry of his departure, though the Duty Officer had made it. PW4 testified that he was carrying the IO kit when he left for the place of the incident. The witness deposed that when they returned to the place of the incident from the hospital at about 05:30 A.M., he called the public persons to join the investigation while entering the house of the accused but they Digitally signed by Akriti Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.05.19 16:40:16 +0530 State Vs. Manjit Singh FIR No. 615/2014 Page No. 9 of 20 refused. The witness admittedly did not serve any notice under section 187 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 upon any of them. PW4 testified that he had offered his personal search to PW3/Ct. Dinesh and that the weapon of offence was recovered at the instance of the accused. The witness admitted that he neither found any blood stains on the weapon of offence (i.e. sword) nor any blood stained clothes of PW1/complainant were seized nor did he collect any blood earth from the alleged place of occurrence. The witness deposed that he had sealed the weapon of offence with the cloth he was carrying and that the seal was returned to him by PW3/Ct. Dinesh on the day next, though no returning memo was prepared to this effect. PW4 denied that the weapon of offence was sealed in the PS and PW2/father of the complainant had brought the cloth with which it was so sealed. PW4 further denied the suggestion that he had recorded the statements of the witnesses in the PS. The witness deposed that he had made his arrival entry upon his return to the PS from the spot. PW4 conceded that PW2/father of the complainant is the only witness to this incident and that he made no investigation from the local residents of the area to verify the veracity of imputation levelled by PW1/complainant. PW4 however denied the following suggestions, namely - that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case FIR; or that the accused had called the PCR but the police official asked him to keep quiet; or that he had not seen any person other than the accused in the house when he had gone to his house; or that the wife of the accused was bed ridden; and that the incident had occurred due to the noise pollution caused by the loud speakers used by PW1/complainant which was objected to by the accused.
10. Inspector Naresh Kumar was examined as PW5 by the Digitally signed by Akriti Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date: 2025.05.19 16:40:20 +0530 State Vs. Manjit Singh FIR No. 615/2014 Page No. 10 of 20 prosecution. He, inter alia, deposed that in December 2014, while he was posted as an SI in PS Ranjeet Nagar, the case file of the present case FIR was marked to him for further investigation. Thereafter, he called the complainant and recorded his supplementary statement on the basis of which, offence under 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was added in the present case.
10.1. PW5 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the complainant had not mentioned either the date or the time when the alleged threat was given to him by the accused, nor any written complaint was given by the complainant in the PS regarding the alleged threat. The witness admitted that he had not sent any summon/notice to the complainant to join investigation in the PS, however, denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
11. SI Parmender Kumar was examined as PW6 by the prosecution. He deposed that, on 20.09.2017, while he was posted as an SI in PS Ranjeet Nagar, the further investigation into the present case FIR was marked to him. He discussed the case file with his senior officials as the final opinion on the MLC of the injured was awaited. Thereafter, he issued several notices to Acharaya Bikshu Hospital as well as to RML hospital. The witness deposed that the treatment documents of PW1/complainant were misplaced by the hospital, the final opinion could not obtained on the MLC. The witness then filed the charge sheet in the present case FIR after consulting the SHO concerned.
11.1. PW6 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. In his cross-examination, he, inter alia, testified that he had made only Digitally signed by Akriti Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.05.19 16:40:26 +0530 State Vs. Manjit Singh FIR No. 615/2014 Page No. 11 of 20 oral discussions with the senior officials and nothing to that effect was reduced in writing. He however denied the suggestion that he deposing falsely as he had not conducted the investigation fairly.
12. SI Ram Avtar was examined as PW7 by the prosecution. He deposed that in the month of November 2016, while he was posted as an SI in PS Ranjeet Nagar, the further investigation into the present case FIR was marked to him. Thereafter, the witness deposed that he sent notices to the MRD, RML hospital for providing the treatment documents of PW1/complainant. The Medical Record Officer, RML, replied that PW1/complainant was not admitted in his hospital as there is no treatment record available by that name. Copy of the reply was tendered as Mark PW7/X. 12.1. In his brief cross-examination on behalf of the accused, PW7 testified that he had discussed the case file with the SHO concerned but denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely as he had not conducted the investigation fairly.
13. Since, the accused admitted the genuineness and veracity of the FIR bearing No. 615/2014, PS Ranjit Nagar as Ex. A1, certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as Ex. A2, and MLC No. 6646 dated 30.10.2014 of PW1/complainant as Ex. A4 under section 294 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 on 07.05.2022, the examinations of PW Dr. Ashutosh, Dr. Adarsh, Dr. Prasant and HC Om Prakash was thereby, dispensed with.
14. Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated 30.11.2024 and the accused was examined in the exercise of power under section 313 of Digitally signed by Akriti Mahendru Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.05.19 16:40:31 +0530 State Vs. Manjit Singh FIR No. 615/2014 Page No. 12 of 20 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 07.02.2025. The accused pleaded innocence and denied the allegations against him. He claimed that he was taking care of his wife (Smt. Harinder Kaur) who had been bedridden since July 2010, and had been under treatment for acute depression/dementia and various other ailments. The accused submitted that the complainant was partying at his house by playing loud sound to which he had objected. Offended by his objections, the complainant, in connivance with police officials, implicated him in this false case FIR. The accused, however, chose not to adduce any evidence in his defence despite being given an opportunity.
15. Final arguments were addressed on behalf of the accused as well as by the Ld. APP for the State with equal vehemence.
16. The Ld. APP for the State submitted that the prosecution has proved not only the identity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but also recovered the weapon of offence (i.e. the sword) used by the accused to inflict injury upon the complainant and therefore, a finding of guilt deserves to be returned against the accused in the instant case FIR.
17. Per contra, it has been argued on behalf of the accused that the prosecution has neither been able to establish the identity of the accused nor been able to establish the recovery of the alleged weapon of offence at the instance of the accused inasmuch as neither any public witness was joined at any stage of the investigation nor was the alleged weapon of offence sent for forensic examination to establish blood stains of the complainant. The failure of the IO to seize the blood stained clothes purportedly worn by the complainant at the time of the Digitally signed by Akriti Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.05.19 16:40:37 +0530 State Vs. Manjit Singh FIR No. 615/2014 Page No. 13 of 20 alleged incident casts doubts regarding the veracity of version sought to be marshalled by the prosecution in the trial of the accused emanating from the instant case FIR. On the strength of these foregoing pleas, the Ld. Counsel argued that the benefit of doubt must inure in favour of the accused. It is further argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case.
18. Before sifting and weighing the competing submissions in the adumbral of evidence tendered on record, it is deemed germane to reproduce the applicable provisions, namely:
(Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, 1860).
324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means:-
"Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cut- ting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any sub- stance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
(Section 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860) Punishment for criminal intimidation:-
"Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;"Digitally signed by Akriti
Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.05.19 16:40:42 +0530 State Vs. Manjit Singh FIR No. 615/2014 Page No. 14 of 20 "If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc:-
"And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with im- prisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either descrip- tion for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
27. How much of information received from accused may be proved:-
"Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information re- ceived from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such in- formation, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discov- ered, may be proved".
19. In this backdrop, this Court shall test if the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused or not in the adumbral of events as they emerged from the testimonies of witnesses cited, documents tendered and/or evidence generally tendered on record, to wit:
19.1. In order to prove its case, it is rather incumbent upon the prosecution to establish - (a) that the injury on the left hand of PW1 /complainant was caused by the weapon of offence (i.e. the sword) recovered allegedly at the instance of the accused; and (b) that the accused is amenable for inflicting the injury suffered by PW1 as mentioned in the MLC.Digitally signed by Akriti
Mahendru Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.05.19 16:40:47 +0530 State Vs. Manjit Singh FIR No. 615/2014 Page No. 15 of 20
20. Speaking of 19.1.(a) (supra) - that the injury on the left hand of PW1/complainant was caused by the weapon of offence (i.e. the sword) recovered allegedly at the instance of the accused is concerned, it is profitable to note that recovery of the weapon was purportedly witnessed by PW1/complainant and PW3/Ct. Dinesh Kumar vide Ex. PW1/E. However, PW1 in his deposition recorded before this Court denied having witnessed Ex. PW1/E inasmuch as deposed to have been hospitalized in connection with his treatment. Consistent with that statement followed failure of PW1 to identify the weapon of offence (i.e. the sword). On the other hand, PW2/father of the complainant tried to make up for the deficiencies which pervaded in the testimony of PW1 by identifying the weapon of offence in his examination-in-chief, however, his testimony has little to no probative value for the simple reason that he is neither an identifying witness to its recovery effected vide Ex. PW1/E nor has he revealed any peculiar identification mark on the sword which would set the weapon of offence apart from all the other possible swords (kirpans). Moreover, the only time PW2 could have seen the weapon of offence is allegedly in the hands of the accused when he assaulted PW1, however, the record would manifest that the incident in question occurred at around midnight when the sufficiency of light illuminating the scene of crime is rather doubtful and in the absence of any evidence separating the weapon of offence from all the other possible swords ( kirpans) readily available in the market, this Court is of the considered opinion that the recovery of the weapon of offence at the behest of the accused is not proven on record.
20.1. A fortiori, it is germane to note that the PW4/IO, in the present case, made no efforts, not even namesake, to join public persons at any Digitally signed by Akriti Mahendru Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.05.19 16:40:52 +0530 State Vs. Manjit Singh FIR No. 615/2014 Page No. 16 of 20 stage of the investigation. The blithe omission to join public witnesses either at the stage of apprehension of the accused or while recording his disclosure statement, not to mention while effecting the alleged recovery of the weapon of offence at the behest of the accused from his residence raises monumental doubts about the credibility of story put forth by the prosecution. Failure of the prosecution to send the weapon of offence for forensic examination to detect and analyse traces of blood stains even after they were wiped off of the weapon should prove fatal for the case of the prosecution in the absence of any independent public witness, for the prosecution has failed to establish not only the seizure of the sword in the present case FIR being the weapon of offence but also its recovery at the behest of the accused. Apropos of this issue, the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the celebrated judgment of Pawan Kumar v. Delhi Administration reported as 1989 Crl.LJ 127 spring to mind which reads as under:
"Admittedly, there is no impediment in believing the version of the Police officials but for that the prosecution has to lay a good foundation. At least one of them should have deposed that they tried to contact the public witnesses or that they re- fused to join the investigation. Here is a case where no effort was made to join any public witness even though number of them were present. No plausible explanation from the side of the prosecution is forthcoming for not joining the independent witnesses in a case of a serious nature like the present one. It may be that there is an apathy on the part of the general public to associate themselves with the Police raids or the recoveries but that apart, at least the I.O. should have made an earnest ef- fort to join the independent witnesses. No attempt in this direc- tion appears to have been made and this, by itself, is a circum- stance throwing doubt on the arrest or the recovery of the knife from the person of the accused."
20.2. The aforesaid observations were reiterated in the case of Anoop Joshi v. State, reported as 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
Digitally signed by AkritiAkriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.05.19 16:40:56 +0530 State Vs. Manjit Singh FIR No. 615/2014 Page No. 17 of 20 ''18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no such sincere efforts have been made, particu- larly when we find that shops were open and one or two shop- keepers could have been persuaded to join the raiding party to witness the recovery being made from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have later on taken legal action against such shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the rigours of law while declining to perform their legal duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen, which is an offence under the IPC...''.
21. Speaking of 19.1.(b) (supra) - that the accused is amenable for inflicting the injury suffered by PW1 as mentioned in the MLC is concerned, it is noteworthy that, on the one hand, there is no eye witness to the incident other than the victim PW1 and his father PW2 whereas, on the other hand, the the clothes of PW1 worn by him at the time of the alleged incident have not even been recovered by the IO, for their examination is crucial in determining whether the injury suffered by PW1 was self-inflicted or not.
21.1. It is noteworthy that even the medical opinion regarding the nature of injury has not even been brought on record by the prosecution.
21.2. Although, it is an entrenched position of law that conviction can be recorded on the basis of the statement of a single eye witness provided his credibility is not shaken by any adverse circumstance appearing on the record against him and the Court, at the same time, is convinced that he is a truthful witness. The Court will not then insist upon corroboration by any other eye witness particularly as the incident might have occurred at a time or place when there was no possibility of Digitally signed by Akriti Mahendru Akriti Date:
Mahendru 2025.05.19 16:41:01 +0530 State Vs. Manjit Singh FIR No. 615/2014 Page No. 18 of 20 any other eye witness being present, for our legal system has always laid emphasis upon value, weight and quality of evidence rather than upon quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses.
21.3. However, this Court cannot lose sight of the human psychology that when feelings run high and there is a personal cause for enmity, there is a tendency to implicate an innocent person against whom the party has a grudge. In the facts of the present case, there is no gainsaying that the accused, on the one hand, had an altercation with PW1 and PW2, on the other, which culminated into the registration of the present case FIR. Moreover, the contradictions in the versions of PW3 and PW4 are rather both irreconcilable and irresistible to be overlooked inasmuch as the former deposed that 4-5 persons met them when the reached the spot for the first time before they left for the hospital whereas, the latter deposed that no public witness was found at that time. Not only this, PW2 deposed that seizure of the alleged weapon of offence took place in the police station which was followed by admission by PW4/IO that the weapon of offence was sealed in the PS and PW2 had brought the cloth with which it was so sealed. PW1 failed to recognise the weapon of offence altogether, not to mention denied having witnessed its recovery as he was getting treated in the hospital.
21.4. Considering that this Court has already retuned a finding of fact that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt not only the seizure of the sword in the present case FIR being the weapon of offence but also its recovery at the behest of the accused, this Court is also of the considered opinion that, in the absence of any uninterested eye-witness or an expert opinion on record indicating Digitally signed by Akriti Akriti Mahendru Mahendru Date:
2025.05.19 16:41:08 +0530 State Vs. Manjit Singh FIR No. 615/2014 Page No. 19 of 20 either the nature of injury or the cause of it, particularly ruling out the self-inflicting element beyond reasonable doubt, by examining the blood splatter on the clothes of PW1, returning a finding of conviction would be perverse to the cause of justice, more so in the wake of the fact that the weapon of offence has not even examined through the forensic lens in the present case FIR.
21.5. That said, this Court is of the considered opinion that the foregoing factual inconsistencies in the versions of witnesses are both glaring and irreconcilable therefore, do not inspire confidence in this Court so much so that it could be inferred beyond reasonable doubt that that the accused is amenable for inflicting the injury suffered by PW1 forming subject matter of the instant case FIR.
22. All in all, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Having observed so, this Court hereby, acquits the accused for commission of offences under sections 324/506 (Part-II) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in case FIR no. 615/2024 registered at PS Ranjit Nagar.
Announced in open court Digitally
signed by
on this 19th day of May, 2025 Akriti
Mahendru
Akriti
(This judgment contains 20 pages Mahendru Date:
and each page is signed by me) 2025.05.19
16:41:13
+0530
(Akriti Mahendru)
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
West/THC/Delhi
19.05.2025.
State Vs. Manjit Singh FIR No. 615/2014 Page No. 20 of 20