IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Madhu Jain, JJ.
State (Govt of NCT Of Delhi) - Appellant
Versus
Sanjeev Singh & Anr – Respondents
CRL.A. 258 of 2016
Decided On : 27-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellate jurisdiction under crpc. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual background of the incident. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. testimonies of prosecution witnesses. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. defensive arguments by respondents. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 5. summary of prosecution evidence arguments. (Para 20) |
| 6. court's observations on contradictions in testimonies. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 7. issues related to the investigation. (Para 23 , 24) |
| 8. conclusion and trial court's reasoning for acquittal. (Para 25 , 26) |
| 9. arguments from appeal side regarding reliability of evidence. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 10. counterarguments regarding pcr evidence. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 11. principal issues for consideration in the appeal. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 12. analysis of testimonies and evidence reliability. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 13. discussion on evidence and investigatory shortcomings. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 14. court upholds trial court's findings. (Para 45) |
| 15. final conclusion and order regarding acquittal. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
JUDGMENT :
MADHU JAIN, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 378 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter,‘CrPC’) assailing the impugned judgment dated 15th November, 2014 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’) passed by ld. ASJ Special Judge (NDPS)(West), Tis Hazari, Delhi inSessions Case No.3/2011 arising out ofFIR No. 339/2010 Police Station Punjabi Bagh.
2. By the impugned order, the accused/Respondents (hereinafter ‘Respondents’) Sh. Sanjeev Singh and Sh. Shivji Jaiswal @ Guddu were acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 /34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘ IPC ’), on the ground that the Prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against any of the Respondents. The conclusion of the ld. Trial Court is set out below:
“56. In view of the foregoing reasons, this court is of the considered viewthatprosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against any of the two accused persons for the offence punishable under section 302/34, 323/34 IPC . Benefit of doubt is given to both the accused.Therefore, both the accused Sanjeev Singh and Shivji Jaiswal @Guddu are acquitted for the offence punishable under section 302/34, 323/34 . Both the accused are in judicial custody in this case. They be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case on furnishing of their personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount in view of provisions of section 437A Cr.P.C.”
Facts
3. The factual aspects pertaining to the present case are that on 15th November, 2010, information was received at Police Station Punjabi Bagh vide DD No. 11A (Ex. PW8/C) in respect of an unidentified dead body lying in the bushes in the jungle area behind the Post Office, Haryana Power House Complex, Punjabi Bagh. Upon receipt of the said information, Inspector H.S.P. Singh (PW-23) now ACP H.S.P. Singh, along with Sub-Inspector Manoj Kumar (PW-22) and Head Constable Bijender (PW-21), reached the spot.
4. At the spot, the police found one dead body of a male, aged about 40 years, lying there with visible injuries on the head. Vimlesh (hereinafter ‘PW- 1’) and Munesh (hereinafter ‘PW-3’) subsequently identified the dead body as that of Sh. Rakesh (hereinafter ‘deceased’), son of Kishori Lal. PW-1 thereafter made a statement to the police stating that he was working at a liquor shop in Punjabi Bagh on a temporary basis along with his two co-brothers (Chachere sale), namely PW-3 and the deceased, who were residing with him at Loni and were also working at the same liquor shop.
5. According to the Prosecution, on 14th November, 2010 at around 8:30 PM, PW-1, PW-3 and the deceased were selling country made liquor at the said shop. At that time, the Respondents Sanjeev Singh and Shivji Jaiswal @ Guddu, residents of Indira Colony Jhuggi, used to visit the shop frequently and on the date of the incident, they came a

The prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in eyewitness testimonies, unreliable recovery of the weapon, and a defective investigation.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; lapses in investigation and reliance on questionable evidence necessitate acquittal.
Mere failure of the prosecution in producing reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory relating to the weapon of offence and the blood-stained earth and clothes would not derogate from the veracit....
Point of law: Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting ....
A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt but a fair doubt based upon reasons and common sense – It must grow out of evidence in the case – When a reasonable doubt arises in a matter, benefit o....
The court upheld convictions for murder against the appellants, affirming that eyewitness testimony, supported by corroborative evidence, was reliable, and distinctions made in witnesses did not affe....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimony and lack of evidence led to the acquittal of the appellants.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.