Delhi District Court
State vs Sonu @ Tapori And Anr on 9 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. KUMAR RAJAT,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-07, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
SC No. 106/2020
CNR No. DLSH01-002475-2020
FIR No. 215/2019
PS Jyoti Nagar
U/S 308/325/427/34 IPC
STATE
VS.
SONU @ TAPORI,
S/o Sh. Yash Pal,
R/o H.No. E-334, Gali No. 11,
Amar Colony, Gokalpuri, Delhi.
.... Accused
Date of Institution of case 19.03.2020
Date of case reserved for Judgment 08.07.2025
Judgment Pronounced on 09.07.2025
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. As per the case of prosecution, on 09.07.2019, one
PCR call vide DD No. 44A was received and HC Sanjeev Kumar
reached the spot at Saboli Fatak Road, near Kirti Property Dealer
and injured was taken to GTB Hospital.
State Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 1 of 32
KUMAR Digitally signed
by KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT 12:32:58 +0530
Date: 2025.07.09
Injured Arjun alleged that he was running a barber
shop at 18 Foota Road, East Gokalpur, Delhi and on 09.07.2019
at about 5 PM he along with his associate Ajay @ Bhola was
cleaning his shop, then Sonu @ Tapori came for shaving and
after shaving he gave a note of Rs. 2,000/- to him and after
deducting Rs. 30/- he returned Rs. 1970/- to the person Kale,
who was accompanying Sonu @ Tapori as he was drunk and on
this Sonu @ Tapori started abusing him, then Arjun took Rs.
1970/- from Kale and gave Rs. 2,000/- note to Sonu. After
sometime, Sonu came with his associates Kale, Leela etc. and
attacked him with brick and stone due to which he sustained
injury on his head and hand and the glass of his shop and other
articles were broken. He became unconscious and someone had
called at 100 number. The PCR van took him to the hospital.
2. On the complaint of the complainant, FIR was
registered vide FIR No. 215/2019 dated 10.07.2019 in PS Jyoti
Nagar u/s 308/34 IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed
against accused Sonu @ Tapori and Vijay Kumar @ Leela u/s
308/325/427/34 IPC and after filing of charge sheet, cognizance
of offences was taken against accused Sonu @ Tapori and Vijay
Kumar @ Lila.
CHARGE
3. Charge for the offences punishable u/s 308/427/34
IPC was framed against accused Sonu @ Tapori by Ld.
Predecessor on 09.05.2023. Accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial. Co-accused Vijay Kumar @ Leela was discharged
vide order dated 09.05.2023 by the Ld. Predecessor.
State Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 2 of 32
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2025.07.09
12:33:04 +0530
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. Prosecution examined ten (10) witnesses in its favour
to prove the case.
5. PW1 Dr. Antarpreet, SR, deposed that he came before
the Hon’ble Court on the directions of MS regarding the X-ray
Report No. 7778 dt. 09.07.2019, which was prepared by Dr.
Nitesh, SR, who was not working in their hospital at that time
and his whereabouts were not known to them. PW1 further
deposed that he had seen Dr. Nitesh signing and writing during
the work and correctly identified the handwriting and signature
of Dr. Nitesh on said X-ray report, Ex.PW1/A. As per report,
there was fracture of 5th Meta Carpal of Right Hand of injured
Arjun, aged about 23 years and he had also seen the X-ray film
from judicial record, Ex.PW1/B which also showed the above
said fracture.
6. PW2 Retd. SI Naresh deposed that on 10.07.2019, he
was posted as ASI at PS Jyoti Nagar and on that day, he was
working as duty officer and his working hours were from 04:00
pm to 12:00 midnight and on that day at about 11:35 pm, HC
Sanjeev Kumar came at the PS Jyoti Nagar and handed over the
original rukka for registration of FIR and he made endorsement
on the rukka, Ex.PW2/A and PW2 registered the FIR No.
215/2019, Ex.PW2/B and handed over the same to ASI Vijay and
also issued certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act regarding the
FIR, Ex.PW2/C. On 09.07.2019, he was working as DO at PS
Jyoti Nagar from 04:00 pm to 12:00 midnight and on that day, at
about 06:15 pm, he registered GD No. 44A, Ex.PW2/D.
State Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 3 of 32
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2025.07.09
12:33:10 +0530
7. PW3 Ajay @ Bhola deposed that he was working as
barber at E-Block, Gali No. 13, East Gokalpur, Delhi. Earlier, he
used to work as Barber at the shop of Arjun, S/o Rohtash (his
cousin) situated at H. No. E-1071, 18 Ft. Road, East Gokalpur,
Delhi. On 09.07.2019, at about 04:00-04:30 pm, PW3 was
present at above said shop. Accused Sonu @ Tapori along with
two other persons i.e. CCL ‘AK’ and one other person Leela
came at above said shop and he got his beard shaved from PW3
and gave Rs. 2,000/- to PW3. Arjun returned the balance amount
i.e. Rs. 1970/- to him. Then, accused Sonu @ Tapori started
abusing PW3 and his cousin Arjun and started quarreling with
them. Accused Sonu @ Tapori took a brick and hit his brother
Arjun on his head with that brick. PW3 tried to save his brother,
but accused Sonu Tapori caught hold of PW3.
8. PW3 further deposed that thereafter, accused Sonu
Tapori fled away from the spot and his brother Arjun got injured
and blood started oozing out from his head. Someone called at
100 number and police official reached at the spot. His brother
Arjun was taken to GTB Hospital. PW3 along with his brother
Arjun went to the aforesaid spot and IO prepared the site plan dt.
11.07.2019, Ex.PW3/A. PW3 was examined by the police. PW3
had correctly identified two pieces of stone i.e. one big and one
small, as being the same stones/bricks, which were used by
accused Sonu @ Tapori, Ex.P1 (Colly).
9. PW3 had admitted in his cross-examination by Ld.
Addl. PP that firstly, accused Sonu @ Tapori along with CCL
‘AK’ came and had quarrelled with Arjun and left the spot i.e.
State Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 4 of 32
KUMAR Digitally signed
by KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT 12:33:17 +0530
Date: 2025.07.09
Shop. Thereafter, at about 06:00 pm, again accused Sonu came
there along with CCL ‘AK’ (kale) and both of them gave beating
to Arjun. It was Arjun, who returned Rs. 2,000/- note to accused
Sonu @ Tapori and collected Rs. 1970/- from him. PW3 had
forgotten the aforesaid facts due to lapse of time. accused Sonu
@ Tapori also damaged the articles in the same. PW3 had
correctly identified accused Sonu @ Tapori in the Court.
10. PW4 Arjun deposed that he was working as barber at
Surajpur, Noida. Earlier in the year 2019, he used to work as
Barber at the shop situated at H. No. E-1071, 18 Ft. Road, East
Gokalpur, Delhi. On 09.07.2019, at about 05:00 pm, he along
with his brother Ajay @ Bhola were present at his above said
shop, then accused Sonu @ Tapori along with CCL ‘AK’ (Kale)
came at his shop. After getting his beard shaved, accused Sonu
gave Rs. 2,000/- note to PW4. PW4 returned the balance amount
i.e. Rs. 1970/- to CCL ‘AK’. Accused Sonu @ Tapori was in
drunken condition and started abusing PW4 and quarrelling with
him. PW4 handed over currency note of Rs. 2,000/- to accused
Sonu and collected Rs. 1970/- from CCL ‘AK’. After sometime,
accused Sonu along with CCL ‘AK’ and 2-3 persons including
Leela came there i.e. above said shop and started fighting with
PW4. Accused Sonu @ Tapori hit on his head and hand with
bricks/stones, due to which, PW4 received injuries. Accused
Sonu @ Tapori along with above said persons also damaged the
glasses and other articles of his above said shop. Someone called
at 100 number. PCR official came at the spot and took PW4 to
the GTB Hospital where he received treatment.
State Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 5 of 32
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT 12:33:22
Date: 2025.07.09
+0530
11. PW4 further deposed that police official reached
there, but his statement could not be recorded as he was under
pain. On the next day in the night, PW4 went to the PS where his
statement was recorded, Ex.PW4/A. After registration of FIR,
PW4 along with his brother Ajay @ Bhola went to the spot where
IO prepared the site plan, Ex.PW3/A at his instance. On
11.07.2019, accused Sonu @ Tapori was arrested on the
identification of PW4 vide arrest memo dt. 11.07.2019,
Ex.PW4/B in front of H. No. 265, Gali No. 10, East Gokalpur,
Delhi. Personal search of accused Sonu @ Tapori was also
conducted vide memo, Ex.PW4/C.
12. PW4 had correctly identified two pieces of stone i.e.
one big and one small, as being the same stones/bricks, which
were used by accused Sonu @ Tapori, Ex.P1 (Colly) and also
correctly identified 5 photographs, Ex.P2 (Colly) placed on
judicial file, as belonging to his aforesaid shop.
PW4 had admitted in his cross-examination conducted
by Ld. Addl. PP that accused Sonu @ Tapori gave his disclosure
statement dt. 11.07.2019 in his presence,Ex.PW4/D and took
them to the above said spot i.e. H. No. E-1071, 18 Ft. Road, East
Gokalpur, Delhi and on his pointing, pointing out memo,
Ex.PW4/E was prepared. Accused Sonu @ Tapori admitted his
guilt and stated that he hit PW4 on his head and hand with the
stone and CCL ‘AK’ hit PW4 on his face. Accused Sonu @
Tapori got recovered two pieces of stones (made of cement) from
the garbage (malwa) lying outside his above said shop, which
was seized vide seizure memo dt. 11.07.2019, Ex.PW4/F. PW4
State Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 6 of 32
KUMAR Digitally signed
by KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT 12:33:28 +0530
Date: 2025.07.09
had also admitted that in his statement dt. 21.07.2019, he had
stated to the IO that although Vijay Kumar @ Leela was present
at the spot, but he only tried to pacify the matter and he did not
cause any injury to PW4, but due to misunderstanding, PW4
stated his name as one of the assailants along with accused Sonu
@ Tapori. On 25.09.2019, CCL ‘AK’ (Kale) was apprehended on
the identification of PW4 from his house i.e. D-715, East
Gokalpur, Main Fatak Road, Delhi and relevant documents were
prepared by the IO with regard to the CCL ‘AK’. PW4 had
correctly identified accused Sonu @ Tapori in the Court. PW4
could identify CCL ‘AK’, if shown to him.
13. PW5 Dr. Sandeep Kumar deposed that he was
working as a doctor at GTB Hospital since 2015. On 09.07.2019,
he was working as CMO at GTB Hospital. On that day, one
patient namely Arjun was examined by Dr. Rohit vide MLC No.
C-105/30/19 dt. 09.07.2019 under his supervision. PW5 was
acquainted with the handwriting of Dr. Rohit (JR), A&E
Department as PW5 had worked with him and seen him writing
and signing in official discharge of duties. Dr. Rohit had left the
services of GTB Hospital and his present whereabouts were not
known to him as per record of hospital.
PW5 had correctly identified the handwriting of Dr.
Rohit at point A, on MLC No. C-105/30/19 dt. 09.07.2019 of
patient namely Arjun, Ex.PW5/A. As per the handwriting of Dr.
Rohit, the aforesaid patient received following injuries:-
Lacerated wound on right hand finger measuring about 5 cm x 1
cm, Abrasion on middle finger and abrasion over fourth fingerState Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 7 of 32
KUMAR Digitally signed
by KUMAR RAJATRAJAT Date: 2025.07.09
12:33:35 +0530
and elbow of right hand. After primary management, the patient
was referred to Neuro Surgery, Orthopedics and ENT Department
for further management. The MLC bears signature of Dr. Rohit at
point B and also bears the name of PW5 at point C.
14. PW6 Dr. Himanshu Tuli, SR deposed that on
07.09.2019, he was working as doctor SR in Department of
Neurosurgery at GTB Hospital, Delhi. On that day, he gave
opinion regarding the nature of injuries on MLC of injured Arjun,
MLC No. C-105/30/19 dt. 09.07.2019, Ex.PW5/A, which was
simple in nature from Neurosurgery point of view and the same
was mentioned from point D to D1, bears his signature at point
E.
15. PW7 Dr. Rahul Kumar, SR, Orthopedics, GTB
Hospital deposed that he was working in Orthopedics
Department as a doctor at GTB Hospital since May, 2019. He
was acquainted with the handwriting of Dr. Kuldeep Bansal, SR,
Orthopedics Department as PW7 had worked with him and seen
him writing and signing in official discharge of duties. Dr.
Kuldeep Bansal had left the services of GTB Hospital and his
present whereabouts were not known to PW7 as per record of
hospital.
PW7 had correctly identified the handwriting and
signature of Dr. Kuldeep Bansal at point F to F1 and at point G
respectively, on MLC No. C-105/30/19 dt. 09.07.2019 of patient
namely Arjun, Ex.PW5/A. As per the handwriting of Dr. Kuldeep
Bansal, he gave opinion regarding the nature of injuries as
grievous in nature as per radiological record.
State Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 8 of 32
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT 12:33:42
Date: 2025.07.09
+0530
16. PW8 Deepu deposed that on 09.07.2019, at about
06:00-06:15 pm, he was going for some work and when he
reached in front of Barber Shop, E-1071, 18 Ft. Road, East
Gokalpur, Delhi, he saw that some persons were
fighting/quarrelling with each other. Police official reached there
and noted down his name, address and mobile number. PW8
went away from there. Someone from the public persons took his
mobile phone and called at 100 number.
17. PW9 ASI Sanjeev Kumar deposed that on 09.07.2019,
he was posted as HC at PS Jyoti Nagar and on that day, he was
on emergency duty and his duty hours were from 08:00 am to
08:00 pm. On that day, on receiving DD No. 44A, PW9 along
with Ct. Pankaj reached near Kirti Property Dealer, Saboli Fatak
Road, East Gokalpur, Delhi where PW9 came to know that
injured had already been taken to GTB Hospital and quarrel had
taken place in shop. PW9 took the photographs of the spot i.e.
E-1071, 18 Ft. Road, East Gokalpur, Delhi. They went to GTB
Hospital where injured Arjun was found under treatment.
Statement of injured could not be recorded as he was under pain.
PW9 collected the MLC of injured Arjun and aforesaid DD entry
was kept pending.
18. PW9 further deposed that on the next day i.e.
10.07.2019, at about 10:00 pm, injured Arjun came at the PS and
he recorded his statement, dt. 10.07.2019 Ex.PW4/A. PW9
prepared the rukka, Ex.PW9/A and got registered the present FIR
through duty officer. The further investigation of the present case
was marked to ASI Vijay Kumar. After the registration of FIR,
State Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 9 of 32
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT 12:33:48
Date: 2025.07.09
+0530
ASI Vijay along with complainant went to the spot. After some
time, IO/ASI Vijay Kumar returned to the PS. PW9 handed over
the MLC and photographs of the spot to the IO/ASI Vijay Kumar.
Thereafter, on the next day i.e. 11.07.2019, at about 08:00 pm,
PW9 again joined the investigation of the present case along with
IO and complainant. They went to Gali No. 10, East Gokalpur,
Delhi and accused Sonu @ Tapori was found standing in front of
his house i.e. E-265, Gali No. 10, East Gokalpur, Delhi and he
was identified by complainant Arjun.
19. PW9 further deposed that accused Sonu @ Tapori was
apprehended by IO with the help of police staff. Accused Sonu @
Tapori was arrested vide arrest memo, dt. 11.07.2019, Ex.PW4/B,
his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo,
Ex.PW4/C and his disclosure statement was recorded vide
statement, Ex.PW4/D. Accused Sonu @ Tapori took them to the
place of incident i.e. the Barber Shop situated at H. No.1071, 18
Ft. Road, East Gokalpur, Delhi and IO prepared the pointing out
memo, Ex.PW4/E.
20. PW9 further deposed that accused Sonu @ Tapori
disclosed that he could get recover the stones, which were used
by him for causing injuries to the victim/injured Arjun from the
above said spot and he got recovered two pieces of stones, one
big and one small from the garbage/malwa placed inside the
aforesaid shop, which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo,
Ex.PW4/F. PW9 searched for co-accused, but in vain. Accused
Sonu @ Tapori was sent to the lock-up.
State Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 10 of 32
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2025.07.09
PW9 had correctly identified two pieces of stone i.e.
one big and one small, Ex.P1 (colly), as being the same
stones/bricks, which were got recovered by accused Sonu @
Tapori and also correctly identified 5 photographs, Ex.P2 (colly),
as the same belonging to the aforesaid shop. PW9 had correctly
identified accused Sonu @ Tapori in the Court.
21. PW10 Retd. SI Vijay Kumar deposed that on
10.07.2019, he was posted as ASI at PS Jyoti Nagar and on that
day, further investigation of the present case was marked to him.
PW10 along with complainant Arjun went to the spot i.e. E-1071,
18 Ft. Road, East Gokalpur, Delhi where he prepared the site
plan at the instance of complainant, Ex.PW3/A, in the presence
of other eye-witness namely Ajay @ Bhola. PW10 searched for
the accused persons, but in vain. Thereafter, he recorded the
statement of Ajay @ Bhola and supplementary statement of
complainant. PW10 returned to the PS and collected the
photographs of the spot and MLC of injured Arjun from 1 st
IO/HC Sanjeev at the PS.
22. PW10 further deposed that thereafter, PW10 along
with 1st IO/HC Sanjeev Kumar went to the spot in search of
accused persons where they met complainant Arjun, who also
joined the investigation along with them and when they reached
in front of H. No. E-265, Gali No. 10, East Gokalpur, Delhi, the
complainant pointed towards accused Sonu @ Tapori, standing in
the street outside above said house, who had caused injuries to
him along with CCL. Accused Sonu @ Tapori was apprehended
and interrogated by PW10 and arrested vide arrest memo,
State Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 11 of 32
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT 12:34:08
Date: 2025.07.09
+0530
Ex.PW4/B, he was personally searched vide memo, Ex.PW4/C
and his disclosure statement was also recorded vide statement,
Ex.PW4/D. In his disclosure statement, he disclosed that he
could point out the place of incident and could get recover the
weapon of offence i.e. pieces of stones.
23. PW10 further deposed that thereafter, accused Sonu
@ Tapori took them to the barber shop i.e. E-1071, 18 Ft. Road,
East Gokalpur, Delhi and pointed out place of incident. PW10
prepared the pointing out memo, Ex.PW4/E. Thereafter, accused
Sonu @ Tapori got recovered two pieces of stones (one big and
one small) from the garbage/malwa placed inside the said shop
and disclosed that the same were used by him for causing injury
to complainant and PW10 seized the same, vide seizure memo,
Ex.PW4/F. Thereafter, he along with accused Sonu @ Tapori and
HC Sanjeev returned to the PS. PW10 deposited the above said
case property in the malkhana and accused Sonu @ Tapori was
sent to the lock-up after medical examination. On the next day,
accused Sonu @ Tapori was sent to the JC. On 21.07.2019,
PW10 recorded the supplementary statement of complainant
Arjun in which he disclosed that co-accused Vijay @ Leela was
not involved in the incident of causing injury to him.
24. PW10 further deposed that on 25.07.2019, CCL ‘A’
was apprehended and identified by witness Arjun. PW10
conducted proceedings regarding the CCL ‘A’ and recorded the
statement of Arjun and Ct. Sohanvir, who accompanied PW10 in
the proceedings dt. 25.07.2019. On 25.08.2019, co-accused Vijay
@ Leela (discharged) was formally arrested at PS Jyoti Nagar
State Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 12 of 32
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2025.07.09
12:34:13 +0530
vide arrest memo, Ex.PW10/A. During the investigation, PW10
collected the result regarding nature of injuries on the MLC of
injured Arjun and placed it on file. On 30.08.2019, he examined
the public witness namely Deepu i.e. PCR caller and recorded his
statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. After completion of investigation,
PW10 prepared the charge-sheet and submitted it before the
Court.
PW10 had correctly identified two pieces of stone i.e.
one big and one small, Ex.P1 (colly), as being the same
stones/bricks, which were got recovered by accused Sonu @
Tapori and also correctly identified 5 photographs, Ex.P2 (colly),
as belonging to his aforesaid shop. PW10 had correctly identified
accused Sonu @ Tapori in the Court.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED u/s 313 Cr.P.C.(351 BNSS)
25. Statement of accused Sonu Tapori was recorded u/s
313 Cr.PC (351 BNSS) and he denied the incriminating evidence
put to him and stated that all witnesses are interested witnesses
and he was falsely implicated by the police officials in the
present case without any fault on his part and he is innocent and
prayed for acquittal.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE,
ANALYSIS OF WITNESSES AND FINDING
ARGUMENTS OF LD. AMICUS CURIAE FOR ACCUSED
26. Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused argued that he has
been falsely implicated by the complainant and he has no role in
the commission of crime and he had not caused any injury to the
State Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 13 of 32
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2025.07.09
12:34:20 +0530
complainant/injured and eye witness Ajay @ Bhola and injured
Arjun are hostile in the cross-examination and categorically
stated that accused Sonu @ Tapori was not present at the place of
incident and he had deposed falsely against the accused in
examination in chief at the behest of IO and nothing was
recovered from the accused, which is also stated by the witnesses
and in the re-examination by Ld. APP also, they have not
supported the case of prosecution and there is no corroboration to
their version recorded in examination in chief and as such these
witnesses cannot be relied upon to convict the accused and injury
was caused to the injured Arjun by some other person as stated
by him in his cross-examination. Prosecution failed to prove the
case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and any injury
to the injured cannot be attributed to accused and there is no
other public witness, who had witnessed accused causing injury
to injured and evidence of police officials is hearsay in nature
and the recovery of stone is planted as no stone was produced
during trial and it was a cemented block and there are material
contradictions in the testimonies of PWs and even the recovery
shown is doubtful. There was no damage caused by accused to
any property in the shop and there is no valuation of any damage
caused to any article by accused filed on record.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. ADDL. PP FOR THE STATE
27. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that accused had
committed the crime and he had caused injury to the injured with
stone/brick and PW3 eye-witness and PW4 injured have
supported the case of prosecution in the examination in chief and
State Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 14 of 32
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2025.07.09
12:34:26 +0530
correctly identified the accused, who had caused injury to PW4
and also site plan was proved and witnesses correctly identified
the weapon of offence i.e. stones, Ex. P1 and also the
photographs of the place of incident. Accused made disclosure
about his involvement in the crime and the medical evidence also
supports the testimony of injured/complainant/public witnesses
as deposed in their examination in chief and grievous and simple
injuries were caused to the injured by accused, which is proved
by the concerned doctors and medical experts and police
witnesses have also supported the case of prosecution. The
accused had got recovered the stone used in the crime, which was
in his exclusive knowledge and accused had caused damage in
the shop. Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt against the accused.
28. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the
records.
29. The charge against accused Sonu @ Tapori is u/s
308/427/34 IPC.
Section 308 IPC: Attempt to commit culpable
homicide-
“Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge
and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused
death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any
person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to sevenState Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 15 of 32
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2025.07.09
12:34:33 +0530
years, or with fine, or with both.”
Section 425 IPC: Mischief-
Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to
cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any
person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such
change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys
or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously,
commits “mischief”.
30. The material witnesses of the prosecution are PW3
and PW4, who are eye witnesses and injured.
31. The present FIR was registered on the complaint of
Arjun, who alleged that he was running a barber shop at 18 Foota
Road, East Gokalpur, Delhi and on 09.07.2019 at about 5 PM he
along with his associate Ajay @ Bhola was cleaning his shop,
then Sonu @ Tapori came for shaving and after shave, he gave a
note of Rs. 2,000/- to him and after deducting Rs. 30/- he
returned Rs. 1970/- to the person Kale, who was accompanying
Sonu @ Tapori as he was drunk and on this Sonu @ Tapori
started abusing him and then, Arjun took Rs. 1970/- from Kale
and gave Rs. 2,000/- note to Sonu. After sometime, Sonu came
with his associates Kale, Leela etc. and attacked him with brick
and stone due to which he sustained injury on his head and hand
and the glass of his shop and other articles were broken and he
became unconscious and someone had called at 100 number. The
PCR van took him to the hospital.
32. Complainant Arjun was examined as PW4, who
deposed in his examination in chief that on 09.07.2019 at 5 PM,
when he was present with PW3 Ajay @ Bhola in his barber shop,
State Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 16 of 32
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT 12:34:38
Date: 2025.07.09
+0530
accused Sonu along with CCL ‘AK’ came there and after
shaving, he gave note of Rs. 2,000/- to PW4, who returned
balance of Rs. 1,970/- to CCL ‘AK’, but accused Sonu started
abusing him in drunken condition and quarreled with him and
then, he handed over note of Rs. 2,000/- to accused Sonu and
collected Rs. 1,970/- from CCL ‘AK’. After sometime, accused
Sonu and CCL ‘AK’ with 2-3 persons and quarreled with him
and accused Sonu hit on his head and hand with brick and stones
due to which, he sustained injuries and other articles of his shop
were damaged and he proved his complaint, Ex.PW4/A regarding
said allegations and that IO prepared site plan, Ex.PW3/A at his
instance and correctly identified two pieces of stones, big and
small, Ex.P1 and photographs of shop, Ex.P2.
33. PW4 did not depose the complete facts and he was
cross-examined by Ld. APP wherein he admitted recording of
disclosure of accused Sonu, Ex.PW4/D or that he took them to
the spot and got prepared pointing out memo, Ex.PW4/E, but the
said memo is not relevant as spot was known to the prosecution
witnesses as it was the work place of complainant. PW4 correctly
identified accused, who had hit on his head and hand and got
recovered two stones from garbage near his shop.
34. PW4 in his cross by Ld. Amicus for accused admitted
that on 09.07.2019 i.e. on the date of incident, two customers
were present in his barber shop and accused Sonu @ Tapori, who
was his neighbour, was not present there at the time of incident
and other persons came at his shop and started fighting with two
customers and he received injuries while trying to intervene
State Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 17 of 32
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2025.07.09
12:34:44 +0530
between them. PW4 admitted that he had previous quarrel with
accused Sonu @ Tapori prior to the incident and thus, he named
them in the present FIR as the person, who caused injury.
35. PW4 further admitted that he had deposed in his
examination in chief on 02.04.2025 at at the instance of IO, who
had instructed him to depose as per his complaint, Ex.PW4/A and
he admitted that he had signed Ex.PW4/A and other documents,
Ex.PW4/B (arrest memo), Ex.PW4/C (personal search memo),
Ex.PW4/D (disclosure statement), Ex.PW4/E (pointing out
memo) and Ex.PW3/A (site plan) without their contents being
read over to him by IO. Nothing was recovered from his personal
search and he does not know the contents of other documents
while signing and he was illiterate as per his own deposition and
thus, the said documents could not be proved by PW4 and his
deposition makes them doubtful.
36. PW4 has categorically stated that accused Sonu @
Tapori was not present at the shop where in the incident took
place at that time and thus, he created serious doubts on his
examination in chief wherein he identified accused Sonu @
Tapori as the person, who caused injury. Due to this contradictory
versions of PW4 Arjun, he was re-examined by Ld. APP, but
PW4 denied the suggestion of Ld. APP that on 09.07.2019, no
customers were present in his barber shop, who had quarreled
and that accused Sonu @ Tapori was present there at the time of
incident. PW4 also denied that he deposed falsely in his cross-
examination that on 09.07.2019, two customers were present in
the said shop and accused Sonu was not present there at the time
State Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 18 of 32
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2025.07.09
12:34:50 +0530
of incident and that he received injury when he intervened in the
fighting of two customers and other persons. PW4 also denied
that he had previous quarrel with accused Sonu @ Tapori prior to
the incident and named him in the present FIR as the person, who
caused injury to him and that such incident alleged in cross-
examination had ever happened. PW4 also denied that he
deposed in examination in chief at the behest of IO or that he
deposed falsely in his cross that he had put thumb impression on
the above documents after their contents being read over to him.
Thus, the testimony of PW4 is doubtful and not
reliable as he changed his version during his testimony and later
remained firm that accused Sonu @ Tapori has not caused any
injury to him.
37. PW3 Ajay @ Bhola, who is an eye-witness had also
deposed in his examination in chief that on 09.07.2019 at about
4-4.30 PM, accused Sonu @ Tapori got his beard shaved at said
shop and gave Rs. 2,000/- note to him and PW4 returned balance
of Rs. 1,970/- to him and accused started abusing them and took
a brick and hit Arjun on his head and caught hold of him when he
tried to save Arjun. PW3 identified the said brick, Ex.P1. PW3
did not disclose complete facts and he was cross-examined by
Ld. APP and he admitted that accused Sonu @ Tapori along with
CCL ‘AK’ came at the shop and quarreled with Arjun and again
at 6 PM, he came with CCL ‘AK’ and gave beatings to Arjun and
Arjun returned note of Rs. 2,000/- to Sonu and collected Rs.
1,970/- from him and accused Sonu also damaged articles of the
shop.
State Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 19 of 32
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
Date:
RAJAT 2025.07.09
12:34:56
+0530
38. PW3 admitted the fact of damage of articles only
when leading question was put by Ld. APP and he has not stated
that accused Sonu @ Tapori came along with CCL ‘AK’ and 2-3
persons, while PW4 stated that accused came along with CCL
‘AK’ and 2-3 persons including Leela. No such damaged articles
have been seized or shown to PW3 or PW4 during their
testimony, which makes prosecution story doubtful and even no
valuation of any damaged articles was done or brought on record
to prove the offence u/s 427 IPC. During his cross-examination
by accused, PW3 admitted that PW4 Arjun was his cousin and he
had never worked with him at his shop and on 09.07.2019, PW3
was not present at the shop of PW4 at E-1071, 18 Foota Road,
East Gokalpur, Delhi at the time of alleged incident and also
admitted that accused Sonu was their neighbour and that is why
he identified him in his examination in chief on 02.04.2025, on
which date he deposed at the instance of IO and he had not
witnessed any alleged quarrel/fight between PW4 and accused
Sonu @ Tapori and he had put his thumb on document,
Ex.PW3/A without going through its contents. It makes the entire
testimony of PW3 doubtful as he himself stated that he was not
an eye-witness and it also makes the site plan doubtful.
39. During his re-examination by Ld. APP, PW3 denied
that he deposed falsely that he never worked with PW4 Arjun at
his shop or that on 09.07.2019, PW3 was not present at the said
shop or that he had not deposed on 02.04.2025 at the instance of
IO or that he had not seen any quarrel fight between Arjun and
accused Sonu @ Tapori. PW3 denied that he stated true facts in
State Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 20 of 32
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT 12:35:02
Date: 2025.07.09
+0530
his examination in chief and turned hostile after legal advice and
put thumb impression on Ex.PW3/A after going through its
contents.
40. PW3 and PW4 have made material omissions,
contradictions and improvements in their testimonies and have
categorically stated that accused Sonu @ Tapori was not present
at the spot at the time of incident and that no such incident of
causing injury to PW4 Arjun by accused Sonu Tapori with brick
was witnessed by them. It was also stated by PW4 that he had
previous enmity with accused Sonu @ Tapori and that is why he
named him as assailant in the present case, which shows that
accused was named by the complainant out of his previous
enmity.
It is also settled that entire testimony of witness is to
be considered and cross-examination is an extension of the
testimony of the witness recorded in examination in chief.
41. Both PW3 and PW4 had not stated material facts in
their examination in chief and only on leading questions being
put by Ld. APP, they admitted the suggestions being correct.
They are not reliable witnesses and injured/complainant PW4
Arjun had also admitted in cross-examination by Ld. APP that he
had stated that accused Vijay Kumar @ Leela was present at the
spot, but he only tried to pacify the matter and did not cause any
injury to him and due to misunderstanding, he had stated his
name as one of the assailants, which further affects the credibility
of witness as he had wrongly named accused Vijay @ Leela, who
was discharged by the Ld. Predecessor on 09.05.2023.
State Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 21 of 32
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2025.07.09
12:35:08 +0530
42. PW1 Dr. Antarpreet appeared on behalf of Dr. Nitesh
and proved the X-ray report of injured, Ex.PW1/A, in which
there was a fracture of 5 th Meta Carpel of the right hand of
injured Arjun and the X-ray is Ex.PW1/B. MLC of injured Arjun,
Ex.PW5/A, which was proved by PW5 Dr. Sandeep, who
deposed on behalf of Dr. Rohit that there was lacerated wound of
5×1 cm on right hand finger and two abrasions.
43. PW6 Dr. Himanshu Tuli proved his opinion on the
said MLC qua nature of injury as ‘simple’ from neurosurgery
point of view and PW7 Dr. Rahul Kumar on behalf of Dr.
Kuldeep Bansal, proved nature of injury opined by the latter as
‘grievous in nature” from the radiological record as mentioned in
said MLC, Ex.PW5/A.
Thus, from the medical opinion it is proved that the
injury suffered by complainant Arjun was ‘grievous in nature’,
but that is inconsequential as both the public witnesses have
deposed that they had not seen the accused at the spot and
causing any injury to PW4 Arjun. Also PW5 in his cross-
examination stated that all injuries were on hand, fingers and
forearm and PW6 in his cross-examination stated that he can’t
comment, if any injury was on hand of injured and PW7 in his
cross-examination stated that there was fracture on right hand,
which shows that all injuries were on non vital parts of body and
thus, could not have caused the death of injured in any manner
and thus, prosecution could not prove that there was an attempt
to culpable homicide.
State Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 22 of 32
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT 12:35:14
Date: 2025.07.09
+0530
44. PW2 SI Naresh Kumar proved the registration of FIR,
Ex.PW2/B and GD No. 44A, Ex.PW2/D, but the registration of
FIR is not disputed, but accused has not corroborated its contents
in their cross-examination and further re-examination by Ld. APP
and thus, the contents are not proved and information in said DD
was initial one regarding mischief at the shop, but accused is not
named in the same.
45. PW8 Deepu only deposed that he had seen some
persons quarreling with each other, but he has not named or
identified the accused as the one, who was quarreling with PW3
and PW4 or caused any injury to PW4 and he had only deposed
that some public persons took his mobile and called at 100
number and he has not corroborated the versions of PW3 and
PW4 in their respective examination in chief.
46. PW9 prepared the rukka, Ex.PW9/A and that he took
photographs of the spot, Ex.P2, which were identified by PW4 in
his examination in chief, PW9 and also PW10, but neither any
negatives of the same were proved nor any certificate u/s 65B
Indian Evidence Act was proved or brought on record and thus,
these photographs are not proved as per law as it is settled law
that proving negatives is must to prove the photographs and if, it
is a digital photograph and the instrument with which it is
clicked, is not produced as primary evidence, then, to prove the
secondary evidence, the accompanying certificate u/s 65B Indian
Evidence Act (63 BSA) has to be proved, which is not done in
this case.
State Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 23 of 32
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2025.07.09
12:35:20 +0530
47. PW9 and PW10 IO deposed that accused was arrested
in front of his house at the instance of PW4, but PW4 in his
cross-examination by accused admitted that accused Sonu @
Tapori was not arrested in his presence and later he denied the
suggestion of Ld. APP that he deposed falsely in this regard.
Thus, the arrest of accused is also doubtful and nothing was
recovered from his personal search, Ex.PW4/C.
RECOVERY OF WEAPON i.e. STONE
48. Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act
“27. How much of information received from accused
may be proved.
“Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in
consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence,
in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it
amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby
discovered, may be proved.”
The Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act is an exception
to section 25 & 26 of Indian Evidence Act.
49. PW9 and PW10 IO deposed that accused took them to
the spot and got prepared pointing out memo, Ex.PW4/E, but
PW4 stated in his cross that he had put his thumb on said
document without being read over the contents, which makes it
doubtful particularly when he is an illiterate person and otherwise
also it does not prove any strong circumstance or offence against
the accused. PW9 and PW10 deposed that accused disclosed that
he could get recover the stones used in the crime from the said
spot and he got recovered two big and small pieces of stones
from the garbage/malwa placed inside the said shop, but PW3
State Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 24 of 32
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2025.07.09
12:35:27 +0530
and PW4 and the police officials could not explain as to why
there would remain a malwa after two days of occurrence inside
the shop and even PW4 has stated in his cross that he did not
know the contents of Ex.PW4/F, which is memo vide which the
said stones were seized. PW4 stated about the fact of recovery of
those stones by accused in the cross-examination by Ld. APP
when leading question was asked and he just admitted the
suggestion and he has not deposed that accused had disclosed
that he would get them recovered from the said shop though he
was made a witness to the recovery of said stone vide memo,
Ex.PW4/F. PW4 has deposed that said recovery was effected
from the garbage lying outside the said shop, but on the contrary
PW9 deposed that said recovery was effected from inside the
aforesaid shop. PW9 in his cross volunteered that road
construction was going on near the said shop and said stones
were part of material used for making concrete road and thus, the
evidence of PW9 is also self contradictory regarding recovery
inside the shop. The said shop did not belong to accused, rather
PW4 was working in that shop along with PW3 at the time of
incident and it is not the case of prosecution that the said shop
remained closed after the incident till recovery and thus, it was a
running shop for two days after the incident till the recovery of
stones is shown inside the said shop and such stone could have
been put by anyone there and there was no bloodstain found on
those stones to connect them with the accused. There is no
photography or videography of the said recovery. During court
proceedings, it was observed that it was not a stone, rather aState Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 25 of 32
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2025.07.09
12:35:37 +0530
cemented block. Thus, the recovery of said stones is also
doubtful.
50. Even if the recovery is said to be proved as per law,
then also it is settled law that mere recovery of articles i.e.
weapon or incriminating article, is not sufficient to prove the case
against the accused particularly if identity of assailant is not
established and IO has not deposed as per law to prove the
recovery.
51. In Radhey Shyam & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Criminal Appeal No. 2203/2010 decided on 12.04.2023, Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that:
7. Thus, PW4, who claims to be an eye witness, could not
identify a single accused by name in the Court though she claimed that she
was in a position to identify the accused by their names as well as their
respective father’s name.
9. We are therefore, of the considered opinion that the identity
of the named accused as assailants of the deceased has not been established
in the Court beyond a reasonable doubt. Then what remains is the evidence
of the alleged recovery of the weapons of assault at the instance of the
accused. The conviction cannot be sustained only on the basis of the alleged
recovery.
52. In Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar & Others Vs.
State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. (S). 985 OF 2010 dated
19.04.2024, it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that:
60. Thus, when the Investigating Officer steps into the witness
box for proving such disclosure statement, he would be required to narrate
what the accused stated to him. The Investigating Officer essentially testifies
about the conversation held between himself and the accused which has
been taken down into writing leading to the discovery of incriminatingState Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 26 of 32
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2025.07.09
12:35:44 +0530
fact(s).
53. In the case of Mohd. Abdul Hafeez v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, 1983 (1) SCC 143, it was held by this Court as follows:-
“5. ….If evidence otherwise confessional in character is
admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is obligatory
upon the Investigating Officer to state and record who gave the
information; when he is dealing with more than one accused, what words
were used by him so that a recovery pursuant to the information received
may be connected to the person giving the information so as to provide
incriminating evidence against that person.”
Further, in the case of Subramanya v. State of
Karnataka 2022 SCC Online SC 1400, it was held as under: –
84. If, it is say of the investigating officer that the accused
appellant while in custody on his own free will and volition made a
statement that he would lead to the place where he had hidden the weapon
of offence, the site of burial of the dead body, clothes etc., then the first
thing that the investigating officer should have done was to call for two
independent witnesses at the police station itself. Once the two independent
witnesses would arrive at the police station thereafter in their presence the
accused should be asked to make an appropriate statement as he may desire
in regard to pointing out the place where he is said to have hidden the
weapon of offence etc. When the accused while in custody makes such
statement before the two independent witnesses (panch-witnesses) the exact
statement or rather the exact words uttered by the accused should be
incorporated in the first part of the panchnama that the investigating officer
may draw in accordance with law. This first part of the panchnama for the
purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is always drawn at the police
station in the presence of the independent witnesses so as to lend credence
that a particular statement was made by the accused expressing his
willingness on his own free will and volition to point out the place where
the weapon of offence or any other article used in the commission of theState Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 27 of 32
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT 12:35:51
Date: 2025.07.09
+0530
offence had been hidden. Once the first part of the panchnama is completed
thereafter the police party along with the accused and the two independent
witnesses (panch-witnesses) would proceed to the particular place as may be
led by the accused. If from that particular place anything like the weapon of
offence or blood stained clothes or any other article is discovered then that
part of the entire process would form the second part of the panchnama.
This is how the law expects the investigating officer to draw the discovery
panchnama as contemplated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. If we
read the entire oral evidence of the investigating officer then it is clear that
the same is deficient in all the aforesaid relevant aspects of the matter.”
54. Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of
Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 SCC
Online SC 1396, wherein this Court held that mere exhibiting of
memorandum prepared by the Investigating Officer during investigation
cannot tantamount to proof of its contents. While testifying on oath, the
Investigating Officer would be required to narrate the sequence of events
which transpired leading to the recording of the disclosure statement.
69. Thus, we are of the firm opinion that neither the disclosure
memos were proved in accordance with law nor the recovery of the
weapons from open spaces inspire confidence and were wrongly relied
upon by the High Court as incriminating material so as to reverse the
finding of the acquittal recorded by the trial Court.
Thus, the recovery of said stones, used in crime at the
instance of accused Sonu @ Tapori has not been proved as per
law and even had it been proved, then also the recovery alone is
not sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of other
corroborating evidence as the presence of accused Sonu @
Tapori and commission of crime by him is doubtful at the spot at
the time of occurrence as deposed by PW3 and PW4.
State Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 28 of 32
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2025.07.09
12:35:57 +0530
55. PW10 Vijay Kumar proved preparation of site plan,
Ex.PW3/A, but that does not prove the offence against the
accused as his identity as assailant is doubtful. PW10 in his
cross-examination admitted that there were no particulars of the
present case mentioned on the said recovered stones and there
was no bloodstain on the said stones.
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
56. Accused Sonu @ Tapori denied the incriminating
evidence put to him in his statement recorded u/s 351 BNSS and
stated that he was falsely implicated by the police officials in the
present case without any fault on his part. He had not caused any
injury to PW4 Arjun and no weapon of offence i.e. stones were
recovered at his instance.
57. Since, the prosecution has not brought the
foundational facts against the accused as the public witnesses/eye
witness/victim have categorically stated in their cross-
examination that accused had not caused any injury to PW4
Arjun nor he was present at the spot, which makes the identity of
accused as assailant doubtful and thus, the defence of the accused
is not material in this case.
58. In Kailash Gour and Ors. Vs. State of Assam reported
in MANU/SC/1505/2011, Apex Court has observed that an
accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt is a principle that cannot be sacrificed on the altar or
inefficiency, inadequacy or inept handling of the investigation by the police.
The benefit arising from any such faulty investigation ought to go to the
accused and not to the prosecution.
State Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 29 of 32
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT 12:36:02
Date: 2025.07.09
+0530
59. In Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka, dt.
13.10.2022, in Crl. Appeal No. 242/2022, Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India has held that it is settled principle of law that when two
views are possible from the prosecution evidence, the one which is
favourable to the accused shall have to be taken and the benefit of doubt
shall have to be given to the accused.
60. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again held
that onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon
the prosecution and prosecution must establish the charge beyond
reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal
jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the
accused, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in
acquittal of the accused. Reference may be made to the
Judgments titled as ‘Nallapati Sivaiah Vs. Sub Divisional Officer,
Guntur‘, reported as VIII (2007) SLT 454 (SC) in this respect.
Reference may also be made to the Judgment titled as ‘Raj
Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya Vs. State of Rajasthan‘, reported
as (2013) 5 SCC 722, wherein it was held that the large distance
between ‘may be’ true and ‘must be’ true, must be covered by way
of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the
prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and
the basic and golden rule must be applied and the Court must
ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and
circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt
must be given to the accused persons.
In Kaliram Vs. State of HP, AIR 1973 SC 2773 which
are as follow:-
State Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 30 of 32
KUMAR Digitally signed
by KUMAR RAJATRAJAT 12:36:09 +0530
Date: 2025.07.09
Another Golden thread which runs through the web of the
administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two
views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one
pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his
innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused
should be adopted. This principle has a special relevant in
cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be
established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has
accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence
adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of
the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his
innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding
of guilt of the accused.
61. The evidence led by prosecution is not reliable, cogent
and has lot of infirmities as there are lot of material variations,
omissions, inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies
of all the public and other witnesses led by the prosecution and
thus, prosecution could not prove all the ingredients of Section
308/427/34 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and
even IO has not brought on record any valuation report of the
damage caused by the mischief to the PW3 or PW4 or that it was
of worth Rs. 50/- or more.
62. Testimonies of PW3 and PW4 do not inspire
confidence and despite efforts by prosecution, they failed to
identify accused during trial as assailant and they turned hostile
in cross-examination by accused and re-examination by Ld. APP
and nothing fruitful came in their re-examination by Ld. APP
against the accused. The PW3 and PW4 have made material
omissions, improvements, variations and contradictions in their
State Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 31 of 32
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2025.07.09
12:36:15 +0530
testimonies and their testimonies are at variance with the
testimonies of police witnesses, which makes them further,
unreliable witnesses. Thus, accused is entitled to benefit of doubt
qua offence u/s 308/427/34 IPC.
CONCLUSION
63. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Sonu @ Tapori qua
offence punishable u/s 308/427/34 IPC, thus, a benefit of doubt is
given to the accused on the basis of above-noted principles and
facts established on record.
64. Consequently, the accused Sonu @ Tapori is acquitted
of the offences u/s 308/427/34 IPC.
Bail bond cancelled. Surety stands discharged.
File be consigned to Record Room after necessary
Digitally signed
compliance. KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2025.07.09
12:36:22 +0530
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (KUMAR RAJAT)
ON THIS DAY 9 OF JULY 2025
th
ASJ-07, Shahdara, KKD
Courts, Delhi/09.07.2025
State Vs Sonu @ Tapori FIR No. 215/2019 PS Jyoti Nagar Page 32 of 32