The Delhi High Court has dismissed the State’s appeal against the acquittal of two men accused of murder, holding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a case riddled with contradictions, doubtful recovery of the weapon and serious investigative lapses.
The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain upheld the trial court’s decision acquitting the accused of offences under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 IPC.
The case stemmed from the recovery of a man’s body near Punjabi Bagh Metro Station in November 2010. The prosecution alleged that a quarrel at a liquor shop over refusal to supply a particular brand of country liquor escalated into a fatal assault. Two co-workers of the deceased, projected as injured eyewitnesses, claimed that the accused attacked the deceased with an iron rod and assaulted them when they intervened.
However, the High Court found that the prosecution’s case collapsed on critical inconsistencies. Most damaging was the fact that in the first PCR call made shortly after the alleged assault, the eyewitnesses reported that “unknown persons” had quarrelled and beaten them, with no mention of the accused, despite claiming to have known them as regular customers.
The Bench held that non-disclosure of the names of known assailants at the earliest opportunity cast serious doubt on the truthfulness of the prosecution’s story.
The Court also noted material improvements in testimony. Initially, one accused was said to have used the iron rod while the other used fists and kicks, but in court, both eyewitnesses claimed that both accused delivered iron rod blows. Their conduct was described as “unnatural”, as they neither took the severely injured deceased to the hospital nor informed the police about the attackers despite allegedly encountering police personnel soon after the incident.
The recovery of the iron rod was also disbelieved. The alleged weapon was said to have been recovered barely 10–12 feet from the place where the body was found, even though the area had already been examined by the police and crime team.
The Court found it improbable that such an object would go unnoticed during earlier inspection. Further, the medical evidence did not convincingly match the weapon. The dimensions of the rod noted in court differed from those mentioned in the medical record; no skull fracture was found despite multiple head injuries, and no DNA analysis was conducted to connect the blood on the rod to the deceased.
Serious lapses in investigation further weakened the prosecution. Blood-stained clothes were not properly seized or sent for forensic examination, no fingerprints were lifted from the weapon, independent public witnesses were not joined despite the area being busy, and contradictions surfaced regarding the timing of the accused’s arrest.
The Court referred to Chandrappa & Others v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Raj Kumar (2014) 4 SCC 39, where the Supreme Court has 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.”
Finding that the trial court had taken a plausible and reasoned view based on the evidence, the Bench concluded that the presumption of innocence stood reinforced and the benefit of doubt rightly granted. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused was upheld.
Appearances
Appellant- Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP for the State
Respondents- Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, (DHCLSC), Mr. Dhruv Choudhary, Mr. Anirudh Tanwar, Mr. Shubham Sourav, Mr. Vijit Singh, Advs. with Respondents in person.
