Delhi High Court: A criminal leave petition was filed under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code (now Section 419 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) by the State, seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 6-12-2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi wherein the respondent was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 365, 395, 397, and 412 of the Penal Code, 1860. Chandra Dhari Singh, J., upheld the acquittal as the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and thus, the benefit of doubt was rightly extended to the accused.
The case arose from an incident reported on 29-10-2012 at 6:17 AM, wherein the police received information about a victim being assaulted, robbed, and his vehicle being damaged. The complainant, a driver for IBN7, was found injured near a CNG pump and was taken to GTB Hospital for medical treatment. Upon regaining consciousness, he reported that on 28-10-2012, at 11:30 PM, while dining at a roadside eatery, he was approached by four unknown men who requested a ride towards Seemapuri. Upon his reluctance, the men allegedly threatened him with a katta (country-made firearm), robbed him, and assaulted him until he lost consciousness. The complainant later found himself tied up in his vehicle’s trunk near a fuel station, where a passerby helped him.
An FIR was registered under Sections 365, 395, 397, and 34 IPC and the accused persons were arrested between October and December 2012, and certain stolen articles, including the complainant’s wallet, ATM card, and driving license, were allegedly recovered at their instance. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses; however, the Sessions Court acquitted all accused persons on 06-12-2016, citing investigation lapses, contradictions in witness testimonies, lack of independent witnesses, and inconclusive forensic evidence. Aggrieved by this, the State filed the present leave to appeal.
The Court, after hearing both sides, examined whether the acquittal suffered from any legal infirmity or misappreciation of evidence warranting interference. Placing reliance on Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 544, the Court reiterated the principles governing appellate interference in acquittal cases. The Court noted that in cases where two views are possible, the one favoring the accused should ordinarily be adopted unless the lower court’s view is manifestly perverse or unreasonable.
In the present case, the Trial Court had undertaken a comprehensive appreciation of evidence. It scrutinized inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements, contradictions in police testimony, forensic lapses, and procedural defects. The Court noted that the complainant’s version varied between the DD entry (two accused), FIR statement (four accused), and testimony in court (six accused persons), raising serious doubts. The delay in the FIR reaching the Investigating Officer remained unexplained, casting suspicion on the prosecution’s timeline. The forensic evidence was inconclusive blood samples were not collected from the vehicle, the complainant’s blood-stained shirt was not seized, and CCTV footage did not establish the presence of the accused in the complainant’s vehicle. The complainant admitted to seeing the accused persons’ photographs at the police station before identifying them in Court, rendering the identification unreliable.
The Court remarked that “It is observed that the Trial Court did not rely on selective evidence, rather examined all the aspects of the case. The discrepancies regarding the number of assailants, contradictions in how the complainant was restrained and the inconsistencies in FIR registration timings were thoroughly assessed. The Trial Court further found that the recoveries were not independently corroborated, forensic evidence was either missing or inconclusive, and in-court identification of the accused was tainted due to prior exposure to their photographs. These findings are based on material contradictions in the prosecution’s case and not on conjecture.”
The Court concluded that reasonable doubt must be based on substantial grounds and not mere conjecture. Given the gaps in the prosecution’s case, the Trial Court’s decision to extend the benefit of the doubt to the accused was justified. The Appellate Court reiterated that an acquittal should not be reversed merely because an alternate conclusion is possible unless the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Thus, the Court found no error, perversity, or legal infirmity in the Trial Court’s acquittal of the accused. Accordingly, the leave to appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the respondents was upheld.
[State v. Danish, CRL.L.P. 399/2017, decided on 05-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the State along with SI Anil
Respondents appeared in person.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
