The main legal point established in the judgment is the reluctance to interfere with an order of acquittal unless there are compelling and substantial reasons to do so, emphasizing the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.

Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, J.

Crl.M.A. 49520/2018 (Exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.A. 49521/2019 (Delay in filing)

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking condonation of 326 days delay in filing the appeal. Learned counsel for the state has no objection if the delay is condoned.

For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the present appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of.

CRL. L. P. 827/2018

In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead), represented through Legal Representatives vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2018) 14 Scale 32, the victim is no longer required to apply for leave to appeal against the order of acquittal. Consequently, the present criminal leave petition is allowed. Registry is directed to register the present leave petition as appeal. Leave petition is disposed of.

CRL.A./2019 (To be numbered)

1. No leave petition has been preferred by the state against the impugned order. On the request of learned counsel for the parties the appeal is set down for final hearing and disposal.

2. This appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 10.10.2017 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-02, South District, Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi in case FIR No. 1001/2014 registered at Police Station-Malviya Nagar, filed on behalf of the victim whereby the accused Danish ('respondent no. 2 herein') was acquitted of the charges punishable under Section 323/341/506(II)/509 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as 'IPC').

3. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Trial Court, are as under: -

“(i) On 11.08.2014 complainant Ms. Gulzar Begum along with her husband and daughter had lodged a complaint at PS: Malviya Nagar with regard to a quarrel taken place on 10.08.2014 in front of her residence i.e. H.No. 21A, opposite Gandhi Park, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.

(ii) On the following facts and circumstances that accused Danish had wrongfully confined and restrained her and her daughter Zaheen Asraf by forcibly pushing her and inflicting simple injuries on them. The accused had also used abusive language while addressing the complainant and her daughter with the intent to insult and outrage their modesty and had threatened to kill her whole family.

(iii) Based on her statement recorded by HC/IO Zaffrudin Khan (PW-6) FIR No. 1001/2014 U/s 323/341/506(II)/509 IPC was registered at Police Station Malviya Nagar. After the completion of investigating, charge sheet was filed on 18.11.2014 and after committal, arguments on the point of charge were heard and charges U/s 323/341/506(II)/509 IPC were framed against the accused on 19.10.2015, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.”

4. To bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses in all. Statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the charges framed against him and claimed to be falsely implicated in the case because he has filed a complaint against Munazir Hussain and his wife on 16.07.2014 and chose not to lead any evidence in his defence.

5. After hearing the respective counsel and on appreciation of entire evidence available on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused for the charged offences.

6. Mr. Uday Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the impugned judgment dated 10.10.2017 is based on conjectures, surmises and the learned Trial court has failed to CRL.A./2019(To be numbered) Page 4 of 13 acknowledge the testimony of PW-1 Gulzar Begum, PW-2 Noorul Ain, PW-5 Ms. Zaheen in the correct perspective and has given undue weightage to the minor discrepancies which have occurred in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, contrary to which all the testimonies are consistent and corroborative in nature and there are no major