Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 16927
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Vikas Mahajan, JJ
State of NCT of Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Surinder Singh – Respondent
CRL.A. 1354/2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aashneet Singh
For the Respondents: Darpan Sachdeva
An appellate court will not overturn an acquittal if the trial court's conclusion is a plausible view based on the evidence, particularly when prosecution witnesses provide contradictory versions of the incident, thereby strengthening the presumption of innocence.
Headnote:(A) Appeal against Acquittal - Standard of Interference - The appellate court can interfere with an order of acquittal only if the trial court's view is not a possible view based on the evidence and the only reasonable conclusion is the guilt of the accused. (Para 11)
(B) Appreciation of Evidence - Contradictory Witness Testimonies - Where prosecution eye-witnesses provide fundamentally contradictory versions of the incident, the evidence is deemed uncertain and ambiguous, justifying the trial court's decision to acquit. (Para 15, 20, 24)
(C) Medical Evidence - Nature of Injury - A medical opinion stating an injury "may" cause death under specific conditions (e.g., air embolism) is distinct from an injury being "sufficient" to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. (Para 21)
Issues: Whether the appellate court should interfere with the trial court's order of acquittal given the contradictory testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.
(Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the State of NCT of Delhi being aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent-accused i.e. Surinder Singh vide impugned judgement dated 03.10.2011 passed by the ASJ-02, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 95/08, FIR No. 39/08, under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter ‘IPC’) and section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Briefly put, the case of the prosecution is that on 12.01.2008, the complainant i.e. Vivek Chhabra [PW-5] along with some people visited the Indo-Chin Bar, Lado Sarai at around 1:30 AM. Later, the complainant and those persons went to the parking area of the bar, and the complainant sat on the bonnet of the car and due to the same, the driver of the car who was sitting inside misbehaved with him and pushed him. Thereafter they started abusing each other and the driver of the car threatened to kill him and also took out a pistol from his pocket and fired on his leg. The driver of the said car was identified as Surinder Singh, the respondent herein, by the owner of the car namely, Mayank Lakhani [PW9].
4. Upon receipt of DD No. 31, ASI Devender went to the place of incident where the statement of the injured complainant was recorded and the rukka was sent, which led to the registration of the FIR under section 307 of IPC and section 27 of Arms Act.
5. The investigation was assigned to SI Aishvir Singh who visited the spot and arrested the respondent-accused, pursuant to which his disclosure was recorded, and seizure of the pistol along with 5 live cartridges, as well as license of the pistol, was made.
6. The injured complainant was taken to Safdarjung Hospital where he received treatment for his injuries. Dr. Satyendra Prakash [PW7] examined the injured and as per the MLC, the injury suffered by the injured was opined as ‘grievous’.
7. After investigation, the chargesheet was filed by the Police under section 173 CrPC. Vide order dated 23.04.2009 charges were framed against the respondent for offences under section 307 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act, to which the respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses, out of which PW4 Nand Kishore, PW-5 Vivek Chhabra (injured/complainant) and PW-9 Mayank Lakhani, have given the eye-witness account.
9. After the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 313 CrPC, but he did not lead any defence evidence. The Trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution held that the evidence on record is not inspiring confidence and is full of inconsistencies and contradictions. Accordingly, the respondent was acquitted of the charge for the offence under Section 307 IPC. Likewise, the respondent was also acquitted of the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove that the shots from the licensed fire arm were fired by the respondent.
10. We have heard Mr. Aashneet Singh, ld. APP for the State, as well as, Mr. Darpan Sachdeva, ld. Counsel for the respondent and have also perused the record.
11. Before proceeding further, it would be useful to advert to the approach to be adopted while deciding an Appeal against acquittal by the Trial Court. In a recent decision in H.D. Sundara and others vs State of Karnataka , (2023) 9 SCC 581, the Supreme Court reiterated the principles which will govern the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC and summarized the same as under:
“8. …… The principles which govern the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC can be summarised as follows:
8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to
