Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 19886
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Vikas Mahajan, JJ
State NCT of Delhi – Appellant
Versus
Rajender Singh – Respondent
CRL.A. 461/2018 | CRL.M.A. 14242/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ritesh Kumar Bahri, Divya Yadav
For the Respondents: Sakesh Kumar, Gitanjali N. Sharma
An appellate court should not reverse an order of acquittal unless the trial court's decision is perverse or based on an implausible view of the evidence, as an acquittal creates a double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.
Headnote:(A) Evidence Appreciation - Testimony of Injured Witness - Material contradictions and improvements across multiple statements - Where the testimony of the injured witness lacks credibility due to significant inconsistencies, it cannot be the sole basis for conviction. (Para 33, 34)
(B) Eye-witness Testimony - Identification of Assailants - Contradictions regarding visibility and identification - Where witnesses fail to consistently identify assailants, especially under conditions of poor visibility (night time and use of monkey caps), the benefit of doubt accrues to the accused. (Para 46, 47)
(C) Forensic Evidence - FSL Reports - Discrepancies in chain of custody and register entries - Interpolations in the FSL receipt register cast doubt on the reliability of the ballistic report. (Para 40, 48)
(D) Appellate Jurisdiction - Appeal against Acquittal - Double presumption of innocence - An appellate court should not interfere with an order of acquittal unless the trial court's view is perverse or implausible, as the presumption of innocence is strengthened by the acquittal. (Para 51, 55)
Issues: Whether the findings of the Trial Court acquitting the respondents were perverse or based on an implausible view of the evidence, warranting interference by the Appellate Court.
JUDGEMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the State under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, ‘Cr.P.C’) assailing the judgment dated 19th July, 2017 passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge- 03(East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 1628/2016. The case arises out of FIR No. 15/2005 registered at PS. New Ashok Nagar.
Background
3. The incident in this case occurred on 12th January 2005 when a call was received, as recorded in Daily Diary No. 24A i.e., Ex. PW-6/A, that one Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta had suffered gunshot injuries at his Shop No. C-1/218 New Kondli, Mangal Bazar Chowk, Delhi by two persons.
4. After causing gunshot injuries to Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, the said persons fled from the site, leaving behind one country-made pistol, i.e., katta, at the site. Thereafter, ASI Mohd. Aftab and Ct. Upender visited and inspected the site and prepared the seizure memo of the country-made pistol.
5. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta was taken to Metro Hospital wherein the MLC was prepared i.e., Ex. PW-3/A. At that stage, the doctor had certified that the injured was unfit for making a statement due to excessive bleeding and severe pain. The injuries recorded in the MLC of the injured are as under:-
1) Entry wound in the left Zygoma with haemotoma left check;
2) Entry and exit wound posterior upper 1/3 of left humerus; and
3) Entry wound right forearm below left condyl of humerus with a palpable bullet, one bullet was also found among the patient's clothes.
6. Thereafter, the stained clothes of the injured were seized from the Metro Hospital along with the bullets. Two days later i.e., on 14th January 2005, the injured gave his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Pursuant to the said statement, the Respondents, namely Rajender Singh and Virender Singh Rawat were arrested on 15th January 2005. Both the Respondents are stated to be residents of New Ashok Nagar and were known to the injured.
7. The charge-sheet was filed against the Respondents for offences committed punishable under Sections 307/452/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’) and Sections 27/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 . The order-on-charge was passed on 26th February 2009 and charges were framed under the abovementioned provisions. A separate charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 was also framed against Virender Singh Rawat.
8. Both the Respondents pleaded not guilty and the trial was then conducted. The prosecution had examined 26 witnesses including the injured himself who appeared as PW-2. PW-7: Deepak@Manoj and PW-14: Saleem@Sunil are stated to be the eye-witnesses.
9. The Trial Court analyzed the evidence of PW-2, i.e., the injured and came to the conclusion that his testimony was not credible, as there were several contradictions and improvements in comparison to his initial statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the supplementary statements. According to the Trial Court, various new facts were added by PW-2 in his supplementary statements. A detailed analysis was done by the Trial Court of the three statements made by PW-2 dated 14th January 2005, 2nd June 2005 and 20th September 2005
10. The Trial Court ultimately came to the conclusion that the testimony of PW-2 does not inspire confidence. Relevant portions of the impugned judgment of the Trial Court on this aspect are set out below:-
40. On being confronted, PW-2 improved his version in material particulars and contradicted from his earlier statement recorded as Ex.PW2/DA dated 14.01.2005. He improved his version from his supplementary statements Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B dated 02.06.2005 and 20.09.2005 respectively. In his supplementary statements, PW-2 introduced a new story by stating that the accused persons had made demands for effecting compromise in case FIR no.42/03 u/s 302 IPC. In Ex.PW2/DA and PW2/A, PW-2 stated that accused Rajender Singh and his
