$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 8^th April, 2026 Uploaded on: 10^th April, 2026 + CRL.A. 87/2017 THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) .....Appellant Through: Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP for State.

SI Ankur, P.S. Sultanpuri.

versus RANJIT & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. M.L. Yadav, Mr. Prashant, Mr.

Piyush Saini and Mr.Hardeep Godara, Advs. for R2 & R3.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE MADHU JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by the State challenging the impugned judgment dated 10^th November,2015passedbytheld.AdditionalSessionsJudge-04,NorthDistrict, Rohini Court, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 172/4 arising out of FIR No. 36/11 registered at P.S. Sultanpuri for offences punishable under Sections 365/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Vide the impugned judgment, the Respondents -

Ranjit, Raju and Prabhu Dayal @ Babla, have been acquitted.

3. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was registered at P.S. Sultanpuri on 3^rd February, 2011 at the instance of the Complainant - Smt. Shanti (PW-5), wherein it was stated that on 2^nd February, 2011, she and her husband had gone to visit the house of her grandmother (dadi) located at House no. B-3, Sultanpuri. At about 4 P.M., the three accused, who were directly or indirectly related to the complainant, had come to the said place and had demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from her husband, to be returned to them. However, since the husband of the complainant had stated that he did not have the money, the complaint alleged that he was forciblytaken awayby the said three persons in a car to an unknown location.

4. The Complainant searched for her husband and upon not being able to trace him she approached the police for filing the said complaint. Upon the said complaint being received, FIR No. 36/11 was registered at P.S. Sultanpuri under Sections 365/34 of IPC. Thereafter, investigation was conducted for tracing the Complainant’s husband, however, on 10^th February, 2011 i.e., almost eight days after having been last seen by the Complainant, a bodywas foundbythe police ofone male aged about 24-25 in the jurisdiction of P.S. S.P. Badli. The said body was identified by the Complainant to be of her husband. It was stated that the Complainant had been accompanied byher sister-in-law at the time of identification.

5. The accused persons were then apprehended on different dates and certain recoveries were also stated to have been made on 26^th February, 2011, from some of the accused persons including a chair, thapi (the murder weapon), DVD wire, plastic rope and chunni. It was the case of the prosecution that all the accused persons had confessed to their involvement in the commission of the offense.

6. It is noted that although there were in total five accused persons against whom trial had been conducted, the present appeal has only been preferred against three Respondents - Ranjit, Raju and Prabhu Dayal @ Babla.

7. The matter was then assigned to the Court of Session, Rohini Court, and charges were also framed on 14th October, 2011 under Sections

302/365/201/34 of IPC.

8. On behalf of the prosecution, fourteen witnesses were examined out of whom,apartfromtheofficialwitnessesandthedoctorandthepoliceofficials, the only public witness who was examined was Complainant - PW-5. It is noted that another public witness - PW-11, was examined, however, his testimony was limited to the accused person who has not been arrayed as a party to the present appeal.

9. The Trial Court, after considering the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that there were various discrepancies in the prosecution’s case.

Some of the discrepancies which were observed by the Trial Court are: (i) The Complainant is stated to have made a PCR call at about

11:00 pm on 2^nd February, 2011. However, no record in respect thereof was produced.

(ii) The PCR van is also stated to have v