* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of reserving Judgment: 15^th January, 2026 Date of decision: 12^th March 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: + CRL.A. 752/2004 JASWANT SINGH .....Appellant Through: Mr. N.S. Dalal, Ms. Nidhi Dalal, Mr.

Alok Kumar and Ms. Rachna Dalal, Advs. versus STATE .....Respondent Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP for the State with W/SI Ritu, PS Subhash Place.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV

JUDGMENT

VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment of conviction dated 12.08.2004 and the order on sentence dated 21.08.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC hereinafter). The appellant already stands acquitted of the charge under Section 307 IPC and, therefore, the said finding is not under consideration. The controversy in the present appeal is confined to the legality and sustainability of the conviction under Section

506 Part I IPC.

2. Succinctly, the prosecution‟s case, as emerged from the impugned judgment and the record, is that in the intervening night of 27/28.09.1997, a quarrel allegedly took place between the complainant PW-6 Tej Ram Bhardwaj and the appellant in respect of a tenanted shop, where former was a tenant and latter was the landlord. Seemingly, the commercial use of the tenanted premises over a period of time developed deep commercial interest in it and the tenant was not willing to vacate whereas the landlord was equally, if not more, keen to have it vacated. This soured the relationship to the extent which led to the present state of affairs and litigation.

3. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, FIR No. 695/1997, Ex. PW-1/A, under Section 506 IPC was registered at Police Station Saraswati Vihar. Subsequently, being dissatisfied with the contents of the FIR, the complainant filed a separate complaint case alleging use of fire- arm, on the basis of which proceedings under Section 307 IPC were also initiated and clubbed with the charge sheet somewhere in July / August 1999. Both matters were tried together. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned trial court disbelieved the prosecution‟s case under Section 307 IPC but convicted the appellant under Section 506 Part I IPC, paving the way for instant appeal.

4. The grounds urged in appeal, as borne out from the memorandum of appeal, are-

(a) That the learned trial court failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective;

(b) That the prosecution witnesses are interested and partisan;

(c) That the complainant and his brother resiled from their earlier statements and turned hostile;

(d) That the allegations regarding the offence under section 307 of the IPC was not accepted by the Ld. Session‟s judge and it was based on the same statements and evidence, therefore, the allegation should be disbelieved in totality;

(e) That there was no legally admissible evidence of any threat, which is the core ingredient of Section 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and there is no statement to this effect;

(f) That the alleged incident of firing finds no mention in the FIR;

(g) That no independent public witness was examined despite availability;

(h) That the medical evidence shows injuries on the person of the appellant himself, and no injury at all to the complainant.

(i) That the entire prosecution case was a result of prior enmity arising out of tenancy disputes and an ongoing criminal case against the complainant.

(j) That there was an ulterior motive on the part of the complainant and they had made up the story to implicate the appellant.

(k) The calling of the police and immediate arrest of the accused was part of the same plan.

5. The suggestion in cross examination given to complainant PW-6 has been evaluated and interpreted by learned Trial Court in a manner in which it should have been and certainly that suggestion cannot be considered and ta