Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 763
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J
STATE – Appellant
Versus
DANISH & ORS – Respondent
CRL.L.P.-399/2017
Ms. Priyanka Dalal, APP for the State along with SI Anil
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; if two views are possible, the one favoring the accused prevails.
Headnote:
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 365, 395, 397, and 412 - Criminal leave petition seeking to appeal against acquittal - The learned Trial Court acquitted the accused due to failure of prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, citing investigating lapses and contradictions in testimonies. (Paras 1, 2, 28)
(B) Standard of proof in criminal cases - The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and if two views are possible, the one favoring the accused must prevail. (Paras 16, 29)
(C) Miscarriage of justice - The erroneous appreciation of evidence and reliance on conjectures by the Trial Court led to the acquittal, which was upheld by the Appellate Court. (Paras 6, 30)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the acquittal of the accused for robbery and assault, where the prosecution failed to establish the case due to inconsistencies and lack of evidence. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
The Trial Court's judgment was upheld as it was well-reasoned, with no legal infirmities found in its decision-making process. (Paras 30, 31)
Issues: Whether the acquittal suffers from legal infirmity or fundamental error in evidence appreciation. (Paras 15)
Ratio Decidendi: The Appellate Court found no substantial error in the Trial Court's reasoning, emphasizing the high standard of proof required in criminal cases. (Paras 28, 30)
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
1. The present criminal leave petition under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”) [now Section 419 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] has been filed on behalf of the appellant/petitioner seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 6th December, 2016 (hereinafter “impugned judgment”) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter “ASJ”) vide which the respondents have been acquitted for the offences punishable under 365, 395, 397 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”) registered at Police Station – Seemapuri, Delhi.
2. The brief facts that led to the filing of the instant petition are as follows:
a. On 29th October, 2012 at 6:17 AM, Police Station – Seemapuri, Delhi received information that two persons had assaulted a victim, snatched his wallet containing an ATM card, driving license and cash, and damaged the vehicle.
b. The victim/complainant, Rajpal Singh, a driver for IBN7, was found injured near a CNG pump and was sent for medical treatment at GTB Hospital.
c. Upon regaining consciousness, the complainant reported that on 28th October, 2012, at 11:30 PM, while having dinner at a roadside eatery, four unknown men asked him to take them towards Seemapuri. Upon reluctance by the victim, the unknown men threatened him with a katta, robbed him and assaulted him until he lost consciousness.
d. The complainant later discovered himself tied up inside the vehicle’s trunk near a fuel station, where a passerby helped him. Based on the statement of the complainant, FIR No. 442/2012 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 395, 397 and 34 of the IPC.
e. The accused Danish, Laxman, Rahul, Rajkumar and Amit were arrested on various dates between October and December, 2012 and some stolen articles such as wallet, ATM card, driving license were allegedly recovered at the instance of accused persons.
f. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses to establish the charges. The learned Sessions Court acquitted all accused vide the impugned judgment dated 6th December, 2016, holding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt noting various investigating lapses, contradictions in police witness testimonies, lack of independent witnesses and inconclusive forensic evidence.
g. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the petitioner has filed the present leave to appeal.
3. Ms. Dalal, learned APP appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is erroneous and unsustainable in the eyes of law. The findings recorded therein suffer from misappropriation of evidence and legal infirmities and therefore, the said judgment is liable to be set aside.
4. It is submitted that the impugned judgment is based on presumptions, conjectures and surmises, rather than a proper appreciation of evidence. As such, it cannot withstand the scrutiny of law and is liable to be set aside.
5. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that all the prosecution witnesses had fully supported the prosecution’s case, establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The erroneous rejection of credible testimony has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
6. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in not considering that there were no material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses that could damage the root of the case. It is also submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish v. State of M.P., 1981 (Suppl) SCC 40, has held that when discrepancies are of a minor character and do not go to the root of the prosecution’s story, they should not be given undue importance, as mere congruity or consistency is not the sole test of truth in witness depositions.
7. It is submitted that the testimony of the complainant, being that of an injured eyewitness, deserved greater weight and could n
