Delhi High Court – Orders
State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) vs Madan Lal & Anr on 22 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.L.P. 378/2015
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP.
SI Vikram, WSI Sangeeta, PS: SB
Dairy.
Versus
MADAN LAL & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajneesh Bhaskar, Advocate for
R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 22.07.2025
1. The present application under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 19731 filed by the State, seeks leave to appeal against judgment
of acquittal dated 24th December, 2014 passed by the ASJ-02, North District,
Rohini Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 129/2013 emanating from FIR
No. 38/2008, registered at P.S. Shahabad Dairy. By the said order, the ASJ
has acquitted Respondent No. 1 of the offences under Sections 308/323/34
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.2
Factual Background
1
“Cr.P.C.”
2
“IPC”
CRL.L.P. 378/2015 Page 1 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/07/2025 at 21:32:56
2. Briefly stated, the case of the Prosecution is as follows:
2.1 On 31st October, 2008, at about 7:30 PM, the Complainant was
returning to her home after purchasing vegetables from the market. As she
reached her jhuggi, the Respondents (accused persons) approached her,
carrying dandas and hurling abuses at her. When the Complainant
questioned them about their conduct, the Respondents started physically
assaulting her with dandas on her waist and head.
2.2 Subsequently, the family members of the Complainant rushed to her
assistance. However, her mother Asha, father Arjun, sister Seema, brother
Abhimanyu, and their neighbour Ranjit, were also assaulted by the
Respondents. A CAT ambulance arrived at the scene and transported the
injured Complainant and her family members to MB Hospital for medical
treatment. Consequently, the subject FIR was registered against the
Respondents at P.S. Shahabad Dairy.
2.3 After completion of investigation, the chargesheet was prepared, and
filed before the concerned court. Subsequently, on 10th December, 2013,
charges were framed against the Respondents for the offences under
Sections 308/323/34 of IPC. While Respondent No. 2 was declared a
proclaimed offender, Respondent No. 1 pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2.4 In order to prove their case, the Prosecution examined eleven
witnesses:
PW-1: Asha, mother of the Complainant;
PW-2: Seema, sister of the Complainant;
PW-3: Sarita, the Complainant;
PW-4: Arjun, father of the Complainant;
PW-5: Ranjit, neighbour of the Complainant (inadvertently re-examined and
CRL.L.P. 378/2015 Page 2 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/07/2025 at 21:32:56
cross-examined as PW-9)
PW-6: HC Joginder Singh, who collected the MLCs of the injured persons
and arrested the Respondents along with the IO;
PW-7: ASI Ishwar Singh, the Investigating Officer of the case;
PW-8: Dr. Virendra Kumar, the Medical Officer, who proved the MLCs of
the injured persons;
PW-10: ASI Ravinder Kumar, the duty officer, who proved the FIR and
rukka; and
PW-11: Abhimanyu, brother of the Complainant.
2.5 After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of Respondent
No. 1 was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he denied all
allegations and claimed innocence. In his defence, he examined two
witnesses: DW-1 (Neeraj) and DW-1 (Krishan, Respondent No. 1’s son)
(who was supposed to be examined as DW-2 but due to inadvertence, was
also examined as DW-1).
2.6 On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the Trial Court, by the
impugned judgement, acquitted Respondent No. 1 of the charges under
Section 308/323/34 of IPC. As for Respondent No. 2, he was declared a
proclaimed offender, and the Prosecution was granted liberty to revive the
case against him as and when he is arrested.
Prosecution’s Case
3. Aggrieved by the acquittal of Respondent No. 1, the State has
preferred the present application seeking leave to appeal against the
impugned judgement. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State, urges the
following grounds to assail the order:
CRL.L.P. 378/2015 Page 3 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/07/2025 at 21:32:56
3.1 The impugned judgement is founded on presumptions, conjectures
and surmises, rather than sound evaluation of evidence on record. As such, it
is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
3.2 The Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the testimony of PW-3,
the Complainant, who provided a clear and specific account attributing
distinct roles to each of the accused persons, aligning with the Prosecution’s
case.
3.3 The Trial Court erred in rejecting the testimonies of PW-1 to PW-5
and PW-11, all of whom are material witnesses. Their testimonies were
specific, consistent, and withstood cross-examination. Each witness clearly
identified the accused and detailed the specific role played by them during
the incident.
3.4 The Trial Court wrongly treated minor discrepancies in the
depositions of the Prosecution witnesses as material contradictions. It is a
well-established legal principle that minor contradictions or discrepancies in
witness statements are inevitable, and cannot serve as a ground to discard
otherwise credible and trustworthy evidence.
Analysis
4. The Court has duly considered the afore-noted facts and contentions
and perused the material on record. The limited issue that arises for
determination is whether the present case warrants the grant of leave to
appeal against an order of acquittal under Section 378(3) of CrPC. The legal
principles governing such a determination are now firmly entrenched in our
jurisprudence. The High Court, while considering a leave to appeal, must be
satisfied that the findings of the Trial Court suffer from a manifest error, are
perverse in nature or reflect a glaring misappreciation of law or evidence.
CRL.L.P. 378/2015 Page 4 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/07/2025 at 21:32:56
The mere possibility of an alternative view cannot be the basis for
interference with an acquittal. Rather, the Court must be persuaded that the
Trial Court has either ignored material evidence, adopted a patently
unreasonable view, or drawn conclusions which no court could have arrived
at. These principles have been clearly articulated by the Supreme Court in
several cases and have been summarized in Prem Kanwar v. State of
Rajasthan,3 wherein the Court observed as follows:
“16. The principles which would govern and regulate the hearing of appeal by
the High Court against an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court have
been set out in innumerable cases of this Court and in Ajit Savant Majagavi v.
State of Karnataka (AIR 1997 SC 3255) the following principles have been re-
iterated:
1. In an appeal against an order of acquittal, the High Court possesses all the
powers and nothing less than the powers it possesses while hearing an appeal
against an order of conviction.
2. The High Court has the power to reconsider the whole issue, reappraise the
evidence and come to its own conclusion and findings in place of the findings
recorded by trial Court, if the said findings are against the weight of the
evidence on record, or in other words, perverse.
3. Before reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to consider
each ground on which the order of acquittal was based and to record its own
reasons for not accepting those grounds not subscribing to the view expressed
by the trial court that the accused is entitled to acquittal.
4. In reversing the finding of acquittal, the High Court has to keep in view the
fact that the presumption of innocence is still available in favour of the accused
and the same stands fortified and strengthened by the order of acquittal passed
in his favour by the trial court.
5. If the High Court on a fresh scrutiny and re-appraisal of the evidence and
other material on record, is of the opinion that there is another view which can
be reasonably taken, then the view which favours the accused should be
adopted.
6. The High Court has also to keep in mind that the trial court had the
advantage of looking at the demeanor of witnesses and observing their conduct
in the Court especially in the witness box.
3
(2009) 3 SCC 726.
CRL.L.P. 378/2015 Page 5 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/07/2025 at 21:32:56
7. The High Court has also to keep in mind that even at that stage, the accused
was entitled to benefit of doubt. The doubt should be such as a reasonable
person would honestly and conscientiously entertain as to the guilt of the
accused.
In this respect, the decisions of this Court in Balbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab
(AIR 1957 SC 216) Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (AIR 1995 SC 280),
Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagjibhai Vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 1995 SC 2505), Hari
Chand Vs. State of Delhi (AIR 1996 SC 1477), Raghbir Singh Vs. State of
Haryana (JT 2000 (5) SC 21), and Hari Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan (JT 2000
(6) SC 254) may be seen.
17. In Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1990 SC 2134) this Court has
held as under: “While caution is the watchword, in appeal against acquittal as
the trial Judge has occasion to watch demeanour of witnesses interference
should not be made merely because a different conclusion could have been
arrived at. Prudence demands restraint on mere probability or possibility but
in perversity or misreading interference is imperative otherwise existence of
power shall be rendered meaningless. In the present case the order of the trial
Court is vitiated as part from deciding the case on irrelevant consideration the
most serious error of which he was guilty and which rendered the order infirm
which could be set aside by the High Court was that he misread the evidence
and indulged in conjectural inferences and surmises.”
5. The same principle was reiterated in Ashok Kumar v. State of
Rajasthan,4 where the Supreme Court held that prudence must guide
appellate interference. It is not the possibility of another conclusion, but the
unreasonableness or illegality of the conclusion reached by the trial court
that justifies appellate scrutiny. Where the trial court has proceeded on
conjecture, surmise, or patent misreading of material evidence, the High
Court is not merely entitled, but duty-bound, to correct the miscarriage of
justice.
6. In view of the aforesaid legal principles, this Court now proceeds to
examine whether the judgment of the Trial Court acquitting Respondent No.
4
(1991) 1 SCC 166.
CRL.L.P. 378/2015 Page 6 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/07/2025 at 21:32:56
1 suffers from any manifest error or perversity. Pertinently, the subject FIR
pertains to an incident in respect of which two cross-cases were registered:
FIR No. 37/2008, lodged at the instance of Respondent No. 1 under Sections
308/323/34 of the IPC, and the subject FIR, i.e., FIR No. 38/2008, registered
at the instance of the present Complainant, Sarita, under Sections
308/323/34 of the IPC.
7. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the acquittal of
Respondent No. 1 was primarily based on the contradictions and
discrepancies in the accounts of the Prosecution witnesses. For ease of
reference, the relevant portion of the Trial Court’s observations is extracted
below:
“34. Now coming to the testimony of the witnesses of this case.
According to PW 1 her elder daughter Sarita had come inside the juggi
and told her that accused Madan Lal and Babu Lal were abusing her. So
she along with Sarita came out of the house and after that her daughter
Seema and Abhimanyu reached there. She has also deposed that her
husband Arjun reached after the incident. So this witness has not uttered a
single word regarding the presence of PW Ranjeet and according to her
husband Arjun is not an eye witness and was not present at the time of
quarrel and only came thereafter.
35. According to PW 2 she came out of the house alongwith her father
Arjun and Asha, Abhimanyu and then they were beaten by the accused
Madan Lal and Babu La. This witness has also not talked about the
presence of PW Ranjeet. According to this witness her father Arjun was
also in the house who came alongwith them from the jhuggi but according
to PW 1 her husband Arjun had come after the incident. So both the
witnesses are contradicting each other.
36. According to the prosecution the quarrel had started because
Sarita was abused by accused Babu Lal and Madan Lal when she was
coming to her Jhuggi. This witness has not stated that she went inside the
jhuggi and then all her family members came out as stated by PW 1 and
PW 2. According to her her mother and sister came to her rescue when
she raised alarm. She has also not uttered a single word about the
presence of PW Ranjeet, her brother Abhimanyu and father Arjun. So this
witness has totally stated in opposite direction as stated by PW 1 and PW
2.
37. PW 4 Arjun has deposed that his wife Asha, daughter Seema,
CRL.L.P. 378/2015 Page 7 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/07/2025 at 21:32:56
neighbour Ranjeet, son Abhimanyu and he himself tried to save Sarita but
according to his wife PW 1 he was not present at the time of the incident
and he only came there after the happening of the incident. He has also
not stated as stated by PW 1 and PW 2 that Sarita came inside the Jhuggi
and then they all came outside to confront the accused persons as stated
by PW 1 and PW 2. He is totally silent about his presence. Rather in his
cross examination he has stated that he saw accused Madan Lal, Babu Lal
and his family members fighting with each other.
38. PW Ranjeet has deposed that on hearing the nosie of “bachao
Bachao” he came outside and Arjun, Asha, Sarita, Seem a and Abhimanyu
also came outside and saw Sarita being beaten and when they intervened
they were also beaten. But PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 are totally silent about
the presence of PW 5. In his cross examination this witness has stated that
he was not aware that if accused and his daughters received injuries in
this case.
39. According to PW 11 he along with his father Arjun, mother Asha,
sister Seema and neighbour Ranjeet came out and saw the fight but it is
pertinent to mention that PW Arjun has himself stated that he was not
present in the house and even PW 1 has stated that Arjun her husband
came there after the incident. So, all the witnesses examined by the
prosecution are contradicting each other.
40. Now from the evidence coming on record it can be safely said that
a fight took place between the accused and his family members and the
complainant and her family members which resulted in the registration of
2 FIRs.
41. The accused in his defence proved on record FIR No. 37/08 which
was got registered by him about the incident and he has also placed on
record the judgment Ex. DW1/C vide which the accused persons namely
Abhimanyu, Arun, Jagdish and Hari Chand have been convicted.
42. From the analysis of the evidence of the public witnesses in this
case, major contradictions are appearing which throws doubt on their
version but the incident is also admitted by them. According to the case of
the prosecution all the public witnesses came out together and then
accused Madam Lal was confronted by them which shows that the accused
was not the aggressor.
43. It is settled proposition of law that the prosecution is duty bound to
explain the injuries suffered by the accused. But in the present case the
same has not been done by the prosecution. The injuries remained
unexplained from the side of the prosecution. Rather it was the accused
who produced on record sufficient evidence in the form of his statement
Ex. DW 1/B and the judgment of conviction as Ex. DW 1/C to show that it
was he and his daughter who had received injuries at the hands of the
accused persons.
44. So in these facts and circumstances, and keeping in view the fact
that there are material contradictions between the testimonies of the
CRL.L.P. 378/2015 Page 8 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/07/2025 at 21:32:56
prosecution witnesses and also the fact that the prosecution has failed to
explain the injuries on the person of the accused, the prosecution has
failed to prove its case. The accused is, therefore, acquitted. File be
consigned to Record Room. Accused Babu Lal is proclaimed offender. The
prosecution is at liberty to get the case revived against him as and when
he is arrested.”
8. It is evident from the aforesaid analysis undertaken by the Trial Court
that the testimonies of the Prosecution’s material witnesses are marred by
significant inconsistencies. For instance, PW-1, Smt. Asha, the mother of the
Complainant, deposed that the Complainant had returned from the market
and was outside the gate of their jhuggi, when she informed her that the
accused persons were abusing her. Pursuant to this, PW-1 and the
Complainant left the house and confronted the Respondents. She further
stated that her younger daughter, Seema (PW-2), and son, Abhimanyu (PW-
11), reached the spot subsequently, and her husband, Arjun (PW-4), arrived
only after the incident had taken place. However, in her cross-examination,
PW-1 contradicted herself by stating that Arjun had, in fact, reached at the
scene “at the time of the incident”, and had attempted to intervene.
9. On the other hand, PW-2, Seema, stated that she was inside the house
with her father, mother, and brother while the Complainant had gone to the
market to purchase vegetables. She further deposed that upon hearing the
Complainant cry out “bachao bachao,” all of them left the jhuggi,
whereupon the accused persons began assaulting them with a danda.
However, during cross-examination, PW-2 changed her account, stating that
only she and her mother went outside the jhuggi in response to the
Complainant’s cries for help, without mentioning the presence of her father
or brother. This discrepancy between the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2
regarding the presence of Arjun (PW-4) in the house at the time of the
CRL.L.P. 378/2015 Page 9 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/07/2025 at 21:32:56
alleged incident, as well as the sequence and timing of the family members
who came to the aid of the Complainant, casts serious doubt on the veracity
of the Prosecution’s version.
10. Furthermore, the Complainant (PW-3) testified that upon raising an
alarm, her mother Asha and sister Seema came to her aid. She further stated
that she subsequently lost consciousness and regained it in the hospital,
where she found Asha, Seema, Abhimanyu, Arjun, and a neighbour named
Ranjit admitted. She later learned that Abhimanyu, Ranjit, and Arjun had
also been assaulted by the accused. Pertinently, the presence of the
neighbour Ranjit at the time of the alleged incident was mentioned for the
first time in PW-3’s testimony and was conspicuously absent from the
statements of PW-1 and PW-2. In fact, PW-1, in her cross-examination
stated that she recalled the presence of only one neighbour, Nandan Lal, at
the scene and categorically denied that any neighbours had intervened
during the assault. This discrepancy regarding Ranjit’s presence raises
further doubts about the consistency of the Prosecution’s case.
11. Additionally, PW-4, Arjun, father of the Complainant, initially
deposed that he was present in the house at the time of the incident and went
outside upon hearing his daughter’s cries, witnessing her being physically
assaulted with a danda. He also corroborated the alleged presence of
neighbour Ranjit. However, during cross-examination, PW-4 significantly
altered his version, stating that he was working in the market at the time of
the incident and did not know who informed him of the same. He added that
when he reached the location, a fight was already ongoing between the
accused persons and his family members. This reveals that there were not
only discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding the
CRL.L.P. 378/2015 Page 10 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/07/2025 at 21:32:56
presence of PW-4 in the house at the time of the alleged incident, but also
contradictions within PW-4’s own statements on this aspect. These
contradictions diminish the credibility of his testimony and also undermine
the case of the Prosecution.
12. Moreover, PW-5, Ranjit, a neighbour of the Complainant, deposed
that upon hearing the Complainant’s cries, he came outside along with
Arjun, Asha, Seema, and Abhimanyu, and witnessed the Respondents
assaulting the Complainant. However, when he was subsequently examined
(as PW-9), he stated that while intervening to save the Complainant, only
Seema and Asha were present, making no mention of Arjun and
Abhimanyu. Further, Abhimanyu, brother of the Complainant, who deposed
as PW- 11, stated that after hearing the Complainant ask for help, he, along
with Arjun, Asha, Seema and Ranjit, went outside and saw the accused
beating the Complainant. His account thus corroborates Ranjit’s presence at
the scene, distinguishing it from the versions provided by PW-1 and PW-2.
Conclusion
13. The Trial Court rightly opined that the testimonies of the
Prosecution’s key witnesses suffer from significant material inconsistencies.
The conclusions drawn by the Trial Court are based on a plausible
appreciation of the evidence and do not suffer from perversity or disregard
of settled principles. It is well-established that when multiple views are
possible based on the evidence on record, the view favourable to the
accused, adopted by the Trial Court, should not be disturbed by the
Appellate Court. Accordingly, the observations made by the Trial Court in
this regard cannot considered perverse, or contrary to the record, such that
they require further consideration for this Court to grant leave to appeal.
CRL.L.P. 378/2015 Page 11 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/07/2025 at 21:32:56
14. In view of the above, the present leave to appeal is dismissed.
SANJEEV NARULA, J
JULY 22, 2025
d.negi
CRL.L.P. 378/2015 Page 12 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/07/2025 at 21:32:56
[ad_1]
Source link