CRL.A. 258/2016 Page 1of 20

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 3

rd

February, 2026

Pronounced on: 27

th

February, 2026

Uploaded on: 27

th

February, 2026

+ CRL.A. 258/2016

STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP for the State

versus

SANJEEV SINGH & ANR .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, (DHCLSC),

Mr. Dhruv Choudhary, Mr. Anirudh

Tanwar, Mr. Shubham Sourav, Mr.

Vijit Singh, Advs. with Respondents

in person.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

JUSTICE MADHU JAIN

JUDGMENT

MADHU JAIN, J.

1.The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 378

(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter,‘CrPC’)

assailing the impugned judgment dated 15

th

November, 2014 (hereinafter,

‘impugned order’)passed by ld. ASJ Special Judge (NDPS)(West), Tis

Hazari, Delhi inSessions Case No.3/2011arising out ofFIR No. 339/2010,

Police Station Punjabi Bagh.

2.By the impugned order, the accused/Respondents(hereinafter

‘Respondents’)Sh. Sanjeev Singhand Sh.Shivji Jaiswal @ Guddu were

CRL.A. 258/2016 Page 2of 20

acquitted of the charges under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’), on the ground that the Prosecution had failed

to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against any of the Respondents.

The conclusion of the ld. Trial Court is set out below:

“56. In view of the foregoing reasons, this court is

of the considered view that prosecution has failed to

prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against any

of the two accused persons for the offence

punishable under section 302/34, 323/34 IPC.

Benefit of doubt is given to both the accused.

Therefore, both the accused Sanjeev Singh and

Shivji Jaiswal @Guddu are acquitted for the

offence punishable under section 302/34, 323/34

IPC. Both the accused are in judicial custody in

this case.They be released forthwith if not wanted

in any other case on furnishing of their personal

bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety

each of the like amount in view of provisions of

section 437A Cr.P.C.”

Facts

3.The factual aspects pertaining to the present case are that on 15

th

November, 2010,information was received at Police Station Punjabi Bagh

videDD No. 11A (Ex. PW8/C) in respect of an unidentified dead body lying

in the bushes in the jungle area behind the Post Office, Haryana Power House

Complex,Punjabi Bagh. Upon receipt of the said information, Inspector

H.S.P. Singh (PW-23) now ACP H.S.P. Singh,along with Sub-Inspector

Manoj Kumar (PW-22)andHead Constable Bijender (PW-21),reached the

spot.

4.At the spot, the police found one dead body of a male, aged about 40

years, lying there with visible injuries on the head. Vimlesh(hereinafter ‘PW-

CRL.A. 258/2016 Page 3of 20

1’) andMunesh (hereinafter ‘PW-3’) subsequently identified the dead body

as that of Sh. Rakesh(hereinafter ‘deceased’), son of Kishori Lal. PW-1

thereafter made a statement to the police stating that he was working at a

liquor shop in Punjabi Bagh on a temporary basis along with his two co-

brothers (Chachere sale), namely PW-3 and the deceased, who were residing

with him at Loni and were also working at the same liquor shop.

5.According to the Prosecution, on 14

th

November, 2010 at around 8:30

PM,PW-1, PW-3 and the deceased were selling country made liquor at the

said shop. At that time, the Respondents Sanjeev Singh and Shivji Jaiswal @

Guddu,residents of Indira Colony Jhuggi, used to visit the shop frequently

and on the date of the incident, they came and demandedGulabSharab,

Country made liquor. However, at that time, the deceased was sellingNarangi

Sharab,Country made liquor and refused to give themGulabSharabas it

was lying in the godown and was not available at the counter and due to rush

he did not have time and asked them to takeNarangi Sharab. Upon refusal

to supplyGulabSharabdue to rush at the shop, the Respondents allegedly

insisted and threatened the deceased that they would see him outside before

leaving the shop.

6.The Prosecution further alleges that after closure of the shop at about

10:00 PM, PW-1, PW-3 and the deceased proceeded on foot towards Punjabi

Bagh Metro Station, with PW-1 and PW-3 walking ahead and the deceased

following them. At around 10:30 PM, when they reached near the side of the

road in front of Metro Pillar No. 86, near Punjabi Bagh Metro Station, it is

alleged that the Respondents were already present there and started beating

the deceased. When PW-1 and PW-3 approached the Respondents to save the

deceased, the Respondent Sanjeev Singh attacked PW-1 on his head with

CRL.A. 258/2016 Page 4of 20

Saria(iron rod) like object, while the Respondent Shivji Jaiswal @ Guddu

attacked with a fist blow to PW 3 under his left eye. PW-1, on feeling giddy

and frightened, ran back towards the liquor shop and PW-3 also followed him,

while the Respondents continued beating the deceased.

7.On reaching the liquor shop, PW-1 used the mobile phone of Jai Singh

(PW-5),the gunman posted at the shop, to apprise his wife Meena (PW-4)

regarding the incident. PW-4, thereafter informed Harvansh Singh @ Tinkoo

(PW-7), cousin (Chachera bhai) of the deceased, who reached Punjabi Bagh

by an auto thereafter and informed the police over call at about 1:00 AM on

15

th

November, 2010. During this period, PW-1, PW-3 and PW-7 continued

their search for the deceased, however, they could not trace him.

8.During investigation, the crime team inspected the spot and took

photographs of the site. Thereafter, a site plan was prepared and blood-stained

earth, blood sample, earth control, articles from pocket of shirt which the

deceased was wearing were collected. The post-mortem examination was

conducted at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, and the cause of death was

opined as cerebral damage consequent upon blunt force impact to the head,

with all injuries being ante-mortem in nature. The clothes of the deceased

were preserved and sent to FSL, Rohini. A scale site plan was prepared and

the call details were collected.

9.During investigation, both Respondents were arrested from Jhuggi No.

A-412, Indira Colonyon 15

th

November, 2010,at the instance of PW-1.

Disclosure statements were recorded and both the Respondents pointed out

the place of occurrence. Respondent Sanjeev Singh allegedly got recovered a

Saria(iron rod) (Ex. P-1), which was seized as the weapon of offence.

CRL.A. 258/2016 Page 5of 20

10.PW-1 and PW-3 were medically examined at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial

Hospital and were found to have sustained simple injuries. Subsequently, Dr.

Manoj Dhingra (PW-11) opined that injuries no. 1 to 6 on the deceased could

be caused by the examined iron rod or a similar object.

11.Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against both

Respondents.Videorder dated 28

th

March, 2011, the ld. Trial Court framed

charges against the Respondents for the offences punishable under Sections

302/34 and 323/34 IPC.The Respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Proceedings before the Trial Court

12.During the course of trial, the Prosecution examined 23 witnesses to

establish its case. PW-1 and PW-3 were examined as material witnesses.

Meena (PW-4), Jai Singh, gunman at the liquor shop (PW-5), Rajpal Singh

(PW-6), in-charge of liquor shop and Harvansh Singh @ Tinkoo (PW-7) were

examined to establish the chain of events before and after the incident.

Medical witnesses, crime team members, investigating officers and formal

witnesses were also examined.

13.PW-1 deposed that he had been working at the liquor shop for about

seven years and that his brothers-in law, PW-3 and the deceased were also

working with him. He further deposed regarding the quarrel at the liquor shop,

the subsequent altercation near the Metro Pillar No. 86, and the injuries

sustained by him and the deceased. PW-1 stated that he informed his wife

telephonically about the incident who informed Harvansh Singh @ Tinkoo

(PW-7), who later informed the police that the deceased could not be traced

during the night. He further deposed that in the following morning, the body

of the deceased was found in bushes near the Metro Station. PW-1 identified

CRL.A. 258/2016 Page 6of 20

the Respondents as regular visitors to the shop, identified Respondent Sanjeev

Singh as the person who struck him with theSaria(iron rod), proved his

statement (Ex. PW-1/A), identified the iron rod (Ex. P-1), and stated that both

the Respondents were arrested in his presence.

14.PW-3 broadly supported the Prosecution version.He stated that he had

been working at the liquor shop at Punjabi Bagh Transport Centre for about

fifteen years, that PW-1 is his brother-in-law(Jija)and that the deceased was

his cousin, both working at the same shop. He corroborated PW-1 regarding

the demand forGulabSharabon 14

th

November, 2010, the refusal to give the

demanded liquor to the Respondents due to a rush of 15-16 persons at that

time and asked them to come the next day for taking theGulab Sharab,

whereafter the Respondents threatened the deceased by telling him that “they

will see him when he came out.” PW-3 further stated that after closure of the

shop, he, PW-1 and the deceased proceeded towards Punjabi Bagh Metro

Station, where near Metro Pillar No. 86, the Respondents allegedly assaulted

the deceased with fists and kick blows as well as aSaria(iron rod) blow to

the deceased. When PW-1 and PW-3 intervened, PW-3 was given a blow near

his eye by the Respondent Sanjeev Singh and PW-1 was struck on the head

with aSariablow, whereafter PW-1 and PW-3 got frightened and ran away

and informed the wife (PW-4) of PW-1, who further informed Harvansh

Singh @Tinkoo (PW-7). He stated that Harvansh Singh @Tinkoo (PW-7)

reached with 3-4 persons at the liquor shop. He further deposed that despite

searching for deceased during the night, he could not be traced and that his

dead body was found the next morning at 8:00 A.M./8:30 A.M. in Indira

Colony in the jungle area and was taken to hospital. He also identified the iron

rod (Ex. P-1) and stated that his statement was recorded by the police.

CRL.A. 258/2016 Page 7of 20

15.Meena (PW-4) deposed regarding receipt of information from PW-1

over telephone and thereafter she informed her brother Harvansh Singh

@Tinkoo (PW-7) about the same. She further deposed that she got to know at

8:00AM that the deceased had passed away due to the quarrel. Gunman Jai

Singh (PW-5) stated that PW-1 and PW-3 returned to the liquor shop in an

injured condition at 11:00 P.M. and that PW-1 used his phone to inform his

wife regarding the deceased being missing. Rajpal Singh (PW-6), the in

charge of the liquor shop deposed about the liquor brands sold at the‘theka’

and that on 16

th

November, 2010 he got to know about the quarrel that had

taken place between some boys on 14

th

November, 2010 and that the deceased

had been murdered. He further deposed that no quarrel took place in his

presence. Harvansh Singh @ Tinkoo (PW-7) deposed regarding the phone

call from Meena (PW-4) about the quarrel at Punjabi Bagh with PW-1, PW-3

and the deceased and the injuries sustained by the deceased, his reaching the

liquor shop during the night with 3 people and informed the police over call

on 15

th

November, 2010. He further deposed about being called at the spot on

15

th

November, 2010 where the dead body of the deceased was lying with a

head injury and was bleeding.

16.The medical evidence was led through Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW-11),

who conducted the post-mortem examination and opined the cause of death

as cerebral injury consequent upon blunt force impact on the head, and

through Dr. Pankaj (PW-17), who proved the MLCs of PW-1 and PW-3

showing simple injuries.

17.The investigating officers and police witnesses deposed regarding

receipt of DD entries, inspection of the spot, seizure of exhibits, arrest of the

CRL.A. 258/2016 Page 8of 20

Respondents and alleged recovery of the iron rod. The Prosecution also relied

upon call detail records and forensic reports.

18.The Respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.In their

statements, the Respondents denied the Prosecution case and claimed false

implication at the instance of PW-1 and PW-3. It was stated that PW-1, PW-

3 and the deceased were quarrelling on the road over distribution of money

and that the deceased was alleging that his money had been taken by PW-1

and PW-3. It was further claimed that while plying rickshaw, they intervened

to disperse them and attempted to save the deceased, during which they

sustained minor injuries and left the spot. It is asserted that due to this

intervention, PW-1 and PW-3 falsely implicated them in the present case. The

Respondents further stated that all three, namely PW-1, PW-3 and the

deceased were under the influence of alcohol. The Respondent Shivji Jaiswal

also stated that PW-1 and PW-3 were known to him previously as they used

to visit his brother’s shop for purchasing paan, gutka and cigarettes.

19.Both the Respondents examined one witness, DW-1, Sh. Shambu

Prasad in their defence.

20.The Court heard the submissions of the ld. APP for the State, ld.

Counsel for Respondent Sanjeev Singh, and ld.Amicus Curiaefor

Respondent Shivji Jaiswal. While the Prosecution contended that the case

stood proved through the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-3, the defence argued

that the Prosecution evidence suffered from serious infirmities. It was urged

that both PW-1 and PW-3 were unreliable witnesses, that their conduct was

unnatural despite being projected as eye-witnesses, and that the alleged

weapon of offence (Ex. P-1) was planted. It was further contended that no

independent public witness or employee from Haryana Power House or

CRL.A. 258/2016 Page 9of 20

nearby establishments was associated with the investigation, and that the

nature of injuries did not correspond with the alleged weapon. It was further

contended that PW-1 and PW-3 knew the locality of jhuggis where the

Respondents used to live and take liquor from and that they had ample

opportunities to inform the police but they did not do so. It was further

contended that PW-1 informed his wife (PW-4) first but did not inform the

police, despite having the mobile phone of the Gunman, Jai Singh (PW-5)

21.On appreciation of evidence, the Court found several material

contradictions and omissions creating reasonable doubt.

22.PW-1 and PW-3 made significant improvements in their statements.

Initially PW-1 stated only Respondent Sanjeev Singh beat the deceased with

the ironSariawhile Respondent Shivji Jaiswal used kicks and fists, but later

both witnesses claimed that both Respondents gaveSariablows. The

eyewitnesses failed to inform anyone including police, doctors, or other

persons about the involvement of Respondents despite knowing them earlier,

which remained unexplained. There were material contradictions between

PW-1 and PW-3 on important facts including whether PW-1 went to his house

at Loni or remained at the liquor shop, whether PW-5 accompanied them to

the spot, and about presence of dhaba and cycle repair shop near the spot.

Their conduct was further suspicious as they did not inform the police when

they met Sub-Inspector Pankaj Kumar (PW-19) and Constable Vikram (PW-

20) at the spot but only mentioned quarrel and snatching, and did not inform

even the doctors who examined them about who caused their injuries. They

were heavily intoxicated at the time of the incident.

23.The medical evidence raised serious doubts about the weapon of

offense. The ironSariaproduced in Court had a diameter of 1.6 cm and 108.5

CRL.A. 258/2016 Page 10of 20

cm in length, however, as per the medical report the metallic rod is 108.5 cm

long and 6 cm in diameter. If such a heavy rod was used there would have

been skull fracture but no fracture was found despite six injuries on the head.

The deceased was found bleeding at 7:05 A.M. though the doctor testified

injuries would take only five minutes to clot blood. No fingerprints of the

Respondents were found on the recoveredSaria. The investigation was

further defective as the Investigating Officer did not seize blood-stained

clothes, did not send them for FSL examination, did not obtain medical

opinion connecting the weapon with injuries to PW-1, did not collect call

details, did not examine other employees present at the liquor shop, and did

not join any public witness despite their availability in the busy area.

24.There were contradictions regarding the arrest of Respondents. Head

Constable Bijender (PW-21) stated both Respondents were arrested at 3:00

P.M. on 15th November, 2010 while as per Sh. Shambu Prasad (DW-1), they

were arrested at 6:30 A.M. on the same day. DW-1 deposed that on 14th

November, 2010 at about 9:30–9:45 P.M., he saw three boys coming from the

liquor shop quarrelling and beating each other at Punjabi Bagh bus stand, and

that public persons intervened and pacified them. The next morning, PCR

staff enquired about the jhuggis of the Respondents and DW-1 took police to

their jhuggis where both Respondents were found sleeping at around 6:30

A.M. DW-1 stated he had never seen them consuming liquor or quarrelling

with anyone and denied that the Respondents were among the three boys

quarrelling or that they were arrested at 3:00 P.M.

25.On the evidences led and depositions of both the Prosecution and the

Defence, the ld. Trial Court came to a conclusion that the Prosecution failed

to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, noting material contradictions and

CRL.A. 258/2016 Page 11of 20

improvements in the testimony of eyewitnesses, their unexplained conduct of

not informing anyone about the involvement of Respondents, discrepancies

in the dimensions of the weapon of offence, and the defective investigation

wherein crucial evidence was not collected.

26.In view of these reasons, both Respondents Sanjeev Singh and Shivji

Jaiswal were given benefit of doubt and were acquitted of all charges. They

were directed to be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- each

with one surety each of the like amount under Section 437A Cr.P.C. if not

wanted in any other case.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellant/ State

27.The submissions made by the ld. APP on behalf of the Appellant is that

the testimony of the two eyewitnesses Vimlesh (PW-1) and Munesh (PW-3)

is sufficient to convict the Respondents. Both the eyewitnesses have clearly

stated that the Respondents had entered into a scuffle with the deceased and

the motive for the incident arising out of the quarrel at the liquor shop has

been established on record. The eyewitnesses being injured witnesses, their

presence at the spot is natural and their testimony is reliable and trustworthy.

28.The ld. APP for the Appellant further submits that the post-mortem

report proves the injuries which have been suffered by the deceased and the

same matches with the recovered weapon. The medical expert PW-11 has

categorically opined that the injuries found on the person of the deceased

could have been caused by the ironSariarecovered in the case. The medical

evidence thus corroborates the ocular testimony of the eyewitnesses regarding

the manner of assault and the weapon used.

CRL.A. 258/2016 Page 12of 20

29.The ld. APP for the Appellant further submits that the ld. Trial Court

has erred in acquitting the Respondents despite clear and cogent evidence

establishing their guilt. The eyewitness testimony supported by medical

evidence and the recovery of the weapon of offence establishes the

Prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt.

30.On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, ld. APP for the Appellant

submits before the Court to convict the Respondents, and to set aside the

impugned order of acquittal.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondents

31.Per contra,Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, legal aid Counsel on behalf of the

Respondents submits that there is a major difference in the PCR calls recorded

by Delhi Police Control Room. The call received at about 0.52.31 hours on

the night between 14

th

and 15

th

November, 2010 reported snatching of money

by unknown persons and also one Vimlesh S/o Pyare Lal aged 32 years R/o

E- 134 Rampark Loni Gazibad and Munesh s/o Mahabir aged 30 years

informed that near metro station, 3-4 unknown boys alongwith 2-3 women

had given beatings to them and thereafter ran away and they received minor

injuries and don’t wish to go to the hospital and there is nothing like money

snatching mentioned. Later at about 6.58.51 hours, the report of dead body

was received. This difference between the two PCR calls raises serious doubt

on the Prosecution story as the first call did not mention any attack by known

Respondents persons.

32.Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, further submits that the conduct of PW-1 and

PW-3 is not natural as the deceased was the cousin brother-in-law of PW-1.

It is unlikely that PW-1 would have left the deceased in an injured condition

CRL.A. 258/2016 Page 13of 20

without taking him to the hospital or informing the police about the names of

attackers whom they knew. The story appears to be false and made up to

blame the Respondents. The testimonies of PW-1 and PW-3 are not believable

as they did not tell the names of attackers to police throughout the night

despite knowing them. Reliance is placed onJagir Singh vs. State (Delhi)

(1975) 3 SCC 562,Shivaji Dayanu Patil vs. State of Maharashtra(1989) 1

Supp. SCC 758, andDevinder vs. State of Haryana1997 SCC (Cri) 570 to

submit that the Prosecution case becomes doubtful when names of attackers

are not told at the earliest opportunity.

33.Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, further submits that the recovery of iron rod at

the instance of Respondent Sanjeev Singh should not be believed in view of

Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu(2009) 17 SCC 273 wherein the Supreme Court

said recoveries were doubtful as police had already visited the area before

recoveries were made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. He submits that

in the present case, the distance between the spot where body was found and

the iron rod was said to be recovered is merely 10 steps. It is not believable

that the police personnel and the Crime Team examining the area for hours

did not find the ironSariaif it was actually there.

34.Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, further places reliance onChandrappa & Others

v. State of Karnataka(2007) 4 SCC 415 andState of Himachal Pradesh v.

Raj Kumar(2014) 4 SCC 39 to submit that the findings of the ld. Trial Court

should not be interfered with in an Appeal against acquittal unless the view

taken by the ld. Trial Court is perverse. The Appellate Court would not

ordinarilysubstitute its own view when the view adopted bythe ld. Trial Court

is a possible and reasonable view. The presumption of innocence with which

the Respondents are protected stands strengthened in cases of acquittal.

CRL.A. 258/2016 Page 14of 20

Analysis and Findings

35.The Court has considered the matter.

36.The principal issues that arise for consideration in the present appeal

are:

(i)Whether the testimony of injured eyewitnesses PW-1 and PW-3

is reliable and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable

doubt?

(ii)Whether the conduct of witnesses in not disclosing names of

assailants at the earliest opportunity and contradiction in PCR

calls creates reasonable doubt? and

(iii)Whether the medical evidence corroborates the ocular testimony

regarding injuries caused by the recovered weapon?

37.It is manifest from the material on record that the most damaging

circumstance against the Prosecution case is the conduct of PW-1 and PW-3

in not disclosing the names of the assailants to the PCR at the first instance

despite knowing the Respondents. The first initial PCR call dated 15

th

November, 2010 at 0:52:31 hours, records that PW-1 and PW-3 told the police

that unknown persons had quarrelled with deceased and tried to snatch his

money and beat them. No mention was made of any known Respondents or

any murderous attack. Sub-Inspector Pankaj Kumar (PW-19) and Constable

Vikram (PW-20)have deposed that PW-1 and PW-3 informed about the

quarrel and snatching only and did not tell anything about any murderous

attack. The said call record has been reproduced hereinbelow:

“PCR No. Received 177

Report Received from VAN

CRL.A. 258/2016 Page 15of 20

RCD 7 MIN MOKA PAR VIMLESH S/O

PAYRELAL AGE 32 YEARS R/O E-134 RAMPARK

LONI GAZIABAD AND MUNESH S/O MAHABIR

AGE 30 YEARS NE BATAYA METRO STN, KA

PASS 3/4 U/K LAKDEY AUR 2/3 UK LADY

HARARE SATH MARPEET KARKE BHAG GAYE

MAMOOLI INJ, HOSP NAHI JANA CHAHTE HAI

PASE CHINNEWALI KOI BAAT NAHI HAI W/LP”

38.There is no infirmity in the order of the ld. Trial Court regarding the

various material contradictions found in the testimony of material witnesses.

There are significant contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-3 and

the conduct of PW-1 and PW-3 is highly suspicious as they did not inform the

police officials about the identity of the assailants when they met Sub-

Inspector Pankaj Kumar (PW-19) and Constable Vikram (PW-20) at the spot

but only mentioned about the quarrel and snatching. The Prosecution has

CRL.A. 258/2016 Page 16of 20

failed to explain as to why PW-1 and PW-3, who knew the Respondents as

regular visitors to the liquor shop, did not inform the police about their

identity. InJagir Singh(supra),Shivaji Dayanu Patil(supra) andDevinder

(supra), the Supreme Court held that non-disclosure of names of known

assailants at the first opportunity raises serious doubt about the truthfulness

of the Prosecution story. This unexplained conduct and silent burial of crucial

information for several hours renders their testimony highly doubtful.

39.The case of the Prosecution further suffers from material contradictions

and improvements.PW-1 and PW-3 made significant improvements in their

statements. Initially, PW-1 stated only Respondent Sanjeev Singh beat the

deceased with the ironSariawhile Respondent Shivji Jaiswal used kicks and

fists, but later both witnesses claimed that both Respondents gaveSaria

blows.PW-1 in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 15

th

November,

2010 stated that only Respondent Sanjeev Singh beat the deceased with iron

Sariawhile Respondent Shivji Jaiswal used kicks and fist. However, PW-1 in

his examination in chief in the Court made improvements and stated that both

Respondents gaveSariablows. Similarly, PW-3 made the same

improvement. Such improvements render their testimony highly unreliable.

There were further material contradictions between PW-1 and PW-3 on

important facts including whether PW-1 went to his house at Loni or remained

at the liquor shop, whether PW-5 accompanied them to the spot, and about

the presence of a dhaba and cycle repair shop near the spot.The witnesses

have suppressed the genesis of the incident. The place of recovery of dead

body and place of alleged quarrel are at a considerable distance with no blood

or dragging marks found between them. This suppression creates serious

doubt.

CRL.A. 258/2016 Page 17of 20

40.The conduct of PW-1 is wholly unnatural. The deceased was the cousin

brother-in-law of PW-1. It is inconceivable that PW-1 would have left the

deceased in an injured and bleeding condition without taking him to hospital

or informing the police about the attackers whom they knew. PW-1 did not

inform even the doctor about who caused the injury. PW-3 admitted that there

was a police gypsy stationed nearby but they did not inform the police either.

They were heavily intoxicated at the time of the incident. The eyewitnesses

failed to inform anyone including police, doctors, or other persons about the

involvement of Respondents despite knowing them earlier, which remained

unexplained. This silent burial of crucial information renders their testimony

unreliable and PW-1 and PW-3 are disbelieved.

41.The recovery of the iron rod at the instance of Respondent Sanjeev

Singh is highly doubtful and the said evidence appears to be planted. The

distance between the spot where the bodywas found and the iron rod allegedly

recovered is merely 10-12 feet. It is wholly improbable that the police

personnel and Crime Team examining the area for hours did not find theSaria

(iron rod) lying just 10-12 feet away from the dead body. InMani(supra), the

Supreme Court termed recoveries farcical where police had already searched

the area before recoveries were made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The Court disbelieved the recovery made at 300 feet distance. In the present

case, the alleged recovery at merely 10-12 feet distance from the dead body

is even more improbable.

42.Even the medical evidence does not corroborate the Prosecution case

and raises serious doubts about the weapon of offence. The ironSaria

produced in court had a diameter of 1.6 cm and 108.5 cm in length, however,

as per the medical report the metallic rod is 108.5 cm long and 6 cm in

CRL.A. 258/2016 Page 18of 20

diameter. If such a heavy rod was used, there would have been a skull fracture

but no fracture was found despite six injuries on the head. The deceased was

found bleeding at 7:05 A.M. though the doctor testified injuries would take

only five minutes to clot blood.The ironSariaproduced in court had diameter

of 1.6 cm, however the medical report mentions diameter of 6 cm. Further, no

DNA analysis of the deceased’s blood was performed on the human blood

detected on the ironSariato verify that it was the blood of the deceased only.

This completelydemolishes the Prosecution case that this particularSariawas

used to assault the deceased. If such a heavy rod was used to inflict six injuries

on the head, there would be a skull fracture, but the post-mortem report shows

no fracture. No fingerprints of the Respondents were found on the recovered

Saria. All these circumstances establish that the iron rod was planted and was

not the actual weapon used.

43.The investigation in the present case was also found to be seriously

defective. The Investigating Officer did not seize blood-stained clothes, did

not send them for FSL examination, did not obtain medical opinion

connecting the weapon with injuries to PW-1, did not collect call details, did

not examine other employees present at the liquor shop, and did not join any

public witness despite their availability in the busy area. These glaring lapses

further undermine the credibility of the Prosecution case.

44.There were also contradictions regarding the arrest of the Respondents.

Head Constable Bijender (PW-21) stated that both the Respondents were

arrested at 3:00 P.M. on 15th November, 2010 while as per Sh. Shambu

Prasad (DW-1), they were arrested at 6:30 A.M. on the same day. Shambhu

Prasad (DW-1) deposed that on 14th November, 2010 at about 9:30–9:45

P.M., while at Punjabi Bagh bus stand, he saw three boys coming from the

CRL.A. 258/2016 Page 19of 20

liquor shop who were quarrelling and beating each other. Public persons

including DW-1 intervened and pacified them. The boys stopped beating but

continued their argument. The next morning, DW-1 heard people discussing

that a dead body was lying near Power House compound. Later, PCR staff

enquired about the jhuggis of Respondents Shivji and Sanjeev. DW-1 and

another person took police to their jhuggis where both Respondents were

found sleeping at around 6:30 A.M. Police took them stating a murder had

been committed. DW-1 stated he knew both Respondents since long as

neighbours in the same jhuggi cluster, had never seen them consuming liquor

or quarrelling with anyone, and confirmed that both pulled thela rickshaw for

livelihood. During cross-examination, DW-1 denied that the Respondents

were among the three boys quarrelling or that they were arrested at 3:00 P.M.,

and denied creating false defence in their favour.

45.InChandrappa(supra) andRaj Kumar(supra), the Supreme Court

held that the Appellate court would not ordinarily substitute its own view

when the view adopted by the ld. Trial court is a possible and reasonable view.

The presumption of innocence stands strengthened in cases of acquittal. In the

present case, the ld. Trial Court has taken a possible and plausible view. The

ld. Trial Court has pointed out material contradictions, improvements in

testimony, unnatural conduct, non-disclosure of names at first opportunity,

farcical recovery of weapon, and lack of corroboration in medical evidence.

These findings are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer

from perversity.

46.After careful consideration, this Court is of the view that the

Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The

testimony of PW-1 and PW-3 suffers from material contradictions. Their

CRL.A. 258/2016 Page 20of 20

conduct in not disclosing names of the known assailants through PCR calls is

wholly unnatural and unexplained. The recovery of the weapon is farcical and

planted. The medical evidence does not corroborate as the DNA from the

Saria(iron rod) was not matched with the deceased. The investigation was

defective as crucial evidence was not collected including blood-stained

clothes, forensic examination, fingerprints, and public witnesses were not

joined despite availability. The ld. Trial Court has rightly given benefit of

doubt to the Respondents. The view taken is reasonable and there is no

perversity warranting interference.

Conclusion

47.In view of the above discussion, the impugned order of acquittal is

hereby upheld and the Appeal is dismissed.

48.The Bail Bonds and Surety Bonds of Respondents are cancelled.

49.Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

MADHU JAIN

JUDGE

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J

JUDGE

FEBRUARY 27, 2026/Av