Delhi District Court
State vs Sadam on 4 April, 2026
State V. Sadam & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.DLWT01-003305-2024
Sessions Case No. 245/2024
FIR No. 664/2017
PS: Ranhola
U/s. 307/325/452/506-II/34 IPC
State Vs. Sadam & Ors.
a) Date of commission of offence : 30/09/2017
b) Name of the complainant : Sh. Pawan Kumar
S/o Sh. Surender Tyagi
c) Name of accused and address : (1) Sadam
S/o Mohd. Abas
R/o A-111A, Shiv Vihar
Near Chauhan Hardware,
Vikas Nagar, New Delhi
Also at:-
Village Mansha Tola Betia,
PS Mufassil, District Betia,
Bihar
(2) Mohd. Minhaz
S/o Mohd. Nishar
R/o A-111A, Shiv Vihar
Near Chauhan Hardware,
Vikas Nagar, New Delhi
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.04
17:24:41 +0530
FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.1/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
Also at:-
Village Harsinghpur,
PS Ghanshyam Pur, District
Dharbhanga, Bihar
(3) Mohd. Iqbal
S/o Anzar Ahmed
R/o A-16, Rajhans Vihar,
Vikas Nagar, New Delhi
Also at:-
Village Harsinghpur,
PS Ghanshyam Pur, District
Dharbhanga, Bihar
d) Offence complained of : u/s. 307/325/452/506-II/34 IPC
e) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
f) Final order : ACQUITTED
Date of institution of the case : 02/04/2024
Date of committal : 16/04/2024
Date on which judgment was : 23/03/2026
reserved
Date of judgment : 04/04/2026
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 30/09/2017 at
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.04
17:24:53
+0530FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.2/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
about 6:30 PM at Plot No. 9/15, S-Block, Shiv Vihar, Vikas Nagar, New Delhi
within the jurisdiction of Police Station Ranhola, accused Sadam, Mohd.
Minhaz, Mohd. Iqbal and CCL ‘MS’ in furtherance of their common intention
had committed criminal house trespass by entering into the above-mentioned
plot of the complainant Pawan Kumar having made preparation for committing
offence of causing hurt to Pawan Kumar and Surender Tyagi in the plot of the
complainant and they were carrying the danda and iron rod. It is also the case
of the prosecution that all accused and CCL ‘MS’ in furtherance of their
common intention had caused grievous injuries to the complainant Pawan
Kumar with danda, iron rod and fist and leg blows on his head and other body
parts, with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if
death would have been caused to the complainant Pawan Kumar, they all
would be guilty of committing the murder of complainant Pawan Kumar. It is
also the case of the prosecution that all accused and CCL ‘MS’ in furtherance
of their common intention had also voluntarily caused grievous injuries to
injured Surender Tyagi. It is also the case of the prosecution that all accused
and CCL ‘MS’ in furtherance of their common intention had also criminally
intimidated and threatened the complainant Pawan Kumar, to cause his death.
REGISTRATION OF FIR, INVESTIGATION AND CHARGE-SHEET
2. In the present case, on the complaint of the complainant
Sh. Pawan Kumar, FIR bearing No. 664/2017, Police Station Ranhola,
u/s. 323/308/34 IPC was got registered by the Police of Police Station Ranhola.
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.04
17:24:59
+0530
FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.3/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
After registration of the FIR, the matter was investigated by the police and on
completion of the investigation, the present charge-sheet was submitted in the
Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate-08, West District, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi on 02/04/2024 for trial of all accused.
COGNIZANCE
3. Cognizance of the offence was taken by the Ld. Metropolitan
Magistrate-08, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide order dated
02/04/2024.
SUPPLY OF COPIES AND COMMITTAL
4. Copies of the charge-sheet were supplied to all accused in
compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, vide order dated 09/04/2024
passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate-08, West District, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi, the present case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
CHARGE
5. Finding a prima-facie case against all accused Sadam, Mohd.
Minhaz and Mohd. Iqbal, charge for the offence u/s. 307/325/452/506-II/34
IPC was framed against them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES
6. Prosecution was then called upon to substantiate its case by
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date: 2026.04.04
17:25:05 +0530
FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.4/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
examining its witnesses. The prosecution in support of its case had examined 7
witnesses. The prosecution had examined the following witnesses:-
(1) PW-1 Sh. Surender Tyagi
(2) PW-2 Sh. Pawan Kumar Tyagi
(3) PW-3 Sh. Ashish Dagar
(4) PW-4 ASI Narvir Singh
(5) PW-5 SI Amit Rathee
(6) PW-6 Inspector Brahm Prakash
(7) PW-7 Inspector Parveen Kumar
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE RELIED UPON BY THE PROSECUTION
7. (1) Statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of PW-1 Sh. Surender Tyagi
Mark PW-1/A
(2) MLC No. 09677 of injured Sh. Surender Tyagi Ex.PW-1/1
(3) Complaint/statement of the complainant Sh. Pawan Kumar
Ex.PW-2/A
(4) Statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant Mark PW-2/PX
(5) Site plan Ex.PW-2/P-1
(6) Seizure memo of iron rod and wooden danda Ex.PW-2/P-2
(7) Seizure memo of clothes of the complainant Ex.PW-2/P-3
(8) Seizure memo of clothes of injured Sh. Surender Tyagi
Ex.PW-2/P-4
(9) Arrest memo of the accused Sadam Ex.PW-2/P-5
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.04
17:25:11
+0530FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.5/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
(10) Arrest memo of the accused Mohd. Minhaz Ex.PW-2/P-6
(11) Arrest memo of the accused Mohd. Iqbal Ex.PW-2/P-7
(12) Personal search memo of the accused Sadam Ex.PW-2/P-8
(13) Personal search memo of accused Mohd. Minhaz Ex.PW-2/P-9
(14) Personal search memo of the accused Mohd. Iqbal Ex.PW-2/P-10
(15) Statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. of Sh. Ashish Dagar Mark PW-3/A
(16) Tehrir Ex.PW-4/A
(17) Disclosure statement of the accused Sadam Ex.PW-4/B
(18) Disclosure statement of the accused Mohd. Minhaz Ex.PW-4/C
(19) Disclosure statement of the accused Mohd. Iqbal Ex.PW-4/D
(20) Pointing out memo of place of incident Ex.PW-7/AApart from aforesaid documentary evidence, the prosecution has
also relied upon the other evidence (case property) i.e. shirt of the
complainant Ex.P-1, handkerchief of the complainant Ex.P-2, kurta and
payjama of the injured Sh. Surender Tyagi Ex.P-3 (colly), wooden stick/danda
Ex.P-4 and iron rod Ex.P-5.
8. TESTIMONIES OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES
(i) PW-1 in his testimony had deposed that he does not remember the
date, month and year but on that day, he was present at his plot situated in Shiv
Vihar, New Delhi, where, he used to keep his cow and buffalo. A quarrel had
taken place between him and some public persons and in the quarrel, he had
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY
Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.04
17:25:16
+0530
FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.6/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
sustained the injuries on his both hands and forearms and after sustaining the
injuries, he became unconscious and he does not know as to what had
happened thereafter. After some time, he regained his consciousness. After
some time, his son Pawan Singh also came at the spot. Thereafter, he alongwith
his son Pawan Singh went to the clinic of doctor situated in Vikas Puri, where
he was got medically treated and thereafter, they returned back to their house.
On the next day, police came to his house and inquired from him regarding the
assailants, to which, he replied that he does not know as to who had caused the
injury to him on the date of incident. He does not know any other fact in
respect of the present case.
Addl. PP for the State was permitted to cross-examine PW-1 as he
was resiling from his statement given to the police. PW-1 was cross-examined
by Addl. PP for the State. PW-1 was not cross-examined by counsel for all
accused, despite opportunity.
(ii) PW-2 in his testimony had deposed that he does not remember the
date, month and year, however, 4-5 years ago at around 4:30-5:00 PM, he
alongwith his father went to their plot situated in Shiv Vihar, New Delhi where
they used to keep their cow and buffalo and when they reached there, they
found that some persons were quarreling with each other. When he had
objected for the same, the aforesaid persons started quarreling with him and
thereafter, he went inside his aforesaid plot. After about one hour, 20-25
persons came at their plot and started beating him and his father with dandas,
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.04
17:25:22 +0530FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.7/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
due to which, he and his father sustained the injuries. Thereafter, he had called
the police at 100 number and after some time, police officials came at the spot
and took him and his father to DDU hospital, where they were medically
treated. From DDU hospital, they came back to their house. On the next day,
police officials came to their house and recorded his statement Ex.PW-2/A.
Ex.PW-2/A was written by the police officials themselves and the same is not
in his hand writing. On the next day of the incident, police officials took his
signatures on blank papers at his house.
Addl. PP for the State was permitted to cross-examine PW-2 as he
was resiling from his statement given to the police. PW-2 was cross-examined
by Addl. PP for the State. PW-2 was not cross-examined by counsel for all
accused, despite opportunity.
(iii) PW-3 in his testimony had deposed that on 30/09/2017, in the
evening time, he was going towards the shop for purchasing the milk and when
he reached near the plot of Pawan Tyagi, he saw that public persons were
gathered there and he had made a call at 100 number. After some time, police
officials of PCR came there and thereafter, he left the spot. He does not know
as to what had happened thereafter.
Addl. PP for the State was permitted to cross-examine PW-3 as
he was resiling from his statement given to the police. PW-3 was cross-
examined by Addl. PP for the State. PW-3 was not cross-examined by counsel
for all accused, despite opportunity.
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.04
17:25:28 +0530FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.8/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
(iv) PW-4 in his testimony had deposed that on 30/09/2017, at about
6:30 PM, he had received DD No. 53-A regarding quarrel at Barkatiya Masjid,
Shiv Vihar. Thereafter, he alongwith one Constable went to the spot i.e.
Barkatiya Masjid and upon reaching there, they came to know that the injured
has already been taken to DDU hospital. Thereafter, he alongwith said
Constable went to DDU hospital and met with the treating doctor and obtained
the MLC of injured. He also met with the injured but he was not in a condition
to give his statement and thereafter, they returned back to police station and
kept the aforesaid DD pending. On 01/10/2017, injured Pawan himself came to
police station and he had recorded his statement Ex.PW-2/A and endorsed the
same. Thereafter, he had prepared tehrir Ex.PW-4/A and got the FIR registered.
After the registration of FIR, further investigation of the present case was
marked to SI Praveen. Thereafter, he alongwith IO SI Praveen and
complainant/injured went to Barkatiya Masjid, Shiv Vihar, where IO had called
the beat staff HC Jwala Singh and Ct. Ashok at the spot. Thereafter, IO had
prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant. IO had seized the
blood stained clothes of the complainant vide seizure memo Ex.PW-2/P-3 and
also seized the weapons of offence i.e. iron rod and wooden stick/danda vide
seizure memo Ex.PW-2/P-2. Thereafter, they went to the house bearing no. A-
111A, Shiv Vihar, where all three accused persons namely Sadam, Mohd.
Minhaz and Mohd. Iqbal were found present and complainant had identified
them as assailants and after inquiry, the aforesaid accused persons were
arrested vide arrest memos Ex.PW-2/5, Ex.PW-2/6 & Ex.PW-2/7. Personal
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.04
17:25:34 +0530FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.9/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
search of the aforesaid accused persons was got conducted vide personal search
memos Ex.PW-2/8, Ex.PW-2/9 & Ex.PW-2/10 and disclosure statements of the
aforesaid accused persons Ex.PW-4/B, Ex.PW-4/C & Ex.PW-4/D were also got
recorded. Thereafter, accused persons were taken to police station and upon
reaching police station, he was discharged from the proceedings on that day.
Addl. PP for the State was permitted to cross-examine PW-4 on
the point of identification of accused persons. PW-4 was cross-examined by
Addl. PP for the State. PW-4 was cross-examined by counsel for all accused.
(v) PW-5 in his testimony had deposed that he does not remember the
date and month, but in the year 2019, further investigation of the present case
was transferred to him and during the course of investigation, he had recorded
the statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of Surender Tyagi and Ashish Dagar. After
completion of further investigation of the present case, he had prepared the
charge-sheet of the present case and filed the same before the Court of
concerned Ld. MM, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
PW-5 was not cross-examined by counsel for all accused, despite
opportunity.
(vi) PW-6 in his testimony had deposed that on 03/10/2017, further
investigation of the present case was marked to him and during investigation,
he had deposited the MLCs of the injured persons in the DDU hospital and
thereafter, collected the results. Accordingly, on the basis of opinion upon the
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.04
17:25:40
+0530FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.10/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
MLCs, he had added sections 452/325 IPC in the present case. He had also
investigated the matter qua CCL ‘S’ and filed the PIR before Ld. JJB.
Thereafter, he had handed over the case file to MHC(R) as he was transferred
from PS Ranhola to PS Nangloi.
PW-6 was not cross-examined by counsel for all accused, despite
opportunity.
(vii) PW-7 in his testimony had deposed that on 01/10/2017,
investigation of the present case was assigned to him by the SHO, PS Ranhola
and he had collected the relevant documents pertaining to the present case from
the Duty Officer as well as from ASI Narveer. On that day, complainant was
also present in the police station and he alongwith complainant and ASI
Narveer went to the spot i.e. Plot No. 9/15, Near Barkatiya Masjid, Shiv Vihar,
Vikas Nagar and complainant had shown the place of incident. Thereafter, he
had prepared site plan Ex.PW-2/P1 at the instance of the complainant.
Thereafter, complainant had handed over his blood stained clothes, which were
worn by him at the time of incident and he had seized the same vide seizure
memo Ex.PW-2/P-3. Complainant had also handed over blood stained clothes
of his father, which were worn by his father at the time of incident and he had
seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW-2/P-4. Complainant had also
handed over weapons of offence i.e. iron rod (pipe) and wooden stick and he
had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW-2/P-2. Complainant had also
informed that the assailants are residing near the spot and complainant took
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.04
17:25:45
+0530FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.11/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
them to the house of assailants i.e. A-111, Shiv Vihar, Vikas Nagar, New Delhi
and assailants namely Sadam, Mohd. Minhaz @ Salman and Mohd. Iqbal were
found present at their house. On the identification of the complainant, he had
arrested the accused Sadam, Mohd. Minhaz @ Salman and Mohd. Iqbal vide
arrest memos Ex.PW-2/P-5, Ex.PW-2/P-6 and Ex.PW-2/P-7. Personal search
of accused Sadam, Mohd. Minhaz @ Salman and Mohd. Iqbal were got
conducted vide personal search memos Ex.PW-2/P-8, Ex.PW-2/P-9 and
Ex.PW-2/P-10 respectively and disclosure statements of accused Sadam,
Mohd. Minhaz @ Salman and Mohd. Iqbal Ex.PW-4/B, Ex.PW-4/C and
Ex.PW-4/D respectively were recorded. Thereafter, aforesaid accused persons
took them to the spot and pointed out towards the spot and he had prepared the
pointing out memo Ex.PW-7/A. Thereafter, medical examination of all the
accused persons were got conducted and after their medical examination, they
were kept in the police lock-up. On the next day, he had apprehended CCL ‘S’
and separate proceedings against CCL ‘S’ were got conducted by him. On
02/10/2017, he had produced the aforesaid accused persons before Ld. Duty
MM and they were remanded to judicial custody. On 03/10/2017, he had
handed over the case file to MHC(R) as further investigation of the present
case was marked to SI Brahm Prakash.
PW-7 was cross-examined by counsel for all accused.
STATEMENTS OF ALL ACCUSED U/S 313 CR.P.C.
9. Separate statements of all accused Sadam, Mohd. Minhaz and
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY
Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.04
17:25:50
+0530
FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.12/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
Mohd. Iqbal were recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the
allegations against them and rebutted the prosecution evidence against them
and claimed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated and they
have no connection with the commission of the offence of the present case. It
was also stated by all accused that they do not want to lead evidence in their
defence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
10. In the present case, all accused had not led defence evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
11. This Court heard the final arguments advanced by Ld. Addl. PP
for the State and Ld. Counsel for all accused and carefully perused the entire
record including the testimonies on record.
During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by Addl.
PP for the State that in the present case, the prosecution witnesses have duly
supported the case of the prosecution and from the testimonies of prosecution
witnesses and the documentary as well as other evidence relied upon by the
prosecution, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against all accused
beyond reasonable doubt and all accused be convicted for the offences as
mentioned in the charge. On the other hand, during the course of final
arguments, it was submitted by counsel for all accused that all accused have
been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no incriminating
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.04
17:25:54 +0530FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.13/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
evidence on record against all accused and there are material contradictions,
inconsistencies and improvements in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses
and the prosecution has failed to prove its case against all accused beyond
reasonable doubt and all accused be acquitted in the present case.
12. It is well settled law that in order to bring home conviction the
prosecution has to show on record an unbroken chain of events leading to
commission of actual offence. Further, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove
its case in such a manner so as to bring it outside the pale of any reasonable
doubt.
It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled
as ” Goverdhan & Anr. V. State of Chhattisgarh” {2025 INSC 47} that :-
” 18. In case of a crime committed, upon completion of
investigation by the investigation agency, the accused are
brought before the court to face trial. Under our criminal
jurisprudence, the court ordinarily is not privy to the
evidence collected during the investigation by the
investigation agency. After completion of the
investigation, what is brought before the trial court is an
array of evidence, both documentary and oral, collected by
the investigating agency against the accused which are
required to be marshalled and analyzed by the court to
arrive at appropriate conclusions. The prosecution seeks to
recreate the incident of crime before the court in sequence,
based on the evidence so collected, linking the accused
with the commission of crime. Such recreation of crime by
the prosecution before the court is akin to putting the
evidence together as in a jigsaw puzzle whereby all the
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.04
17:26:01
+0530FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.14/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
relevant pieces of evidence are put together to complete
the picture of the crime. The prime responsibility of the
court is to see
whether this jigsaw puzzle has been properly placed by the
prosecution from which a clear picture emerges as to the
happening of the incident with the assigned role of the
accused as part of the aforesaid jigsaw puzzle. Only,
thereafter, the role of the accused in perpetrating the
offence can be properly ascribed and proved and
accordingly, criminal liability fastened on the accused.
19. As per Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a
fact can be said to have been proved when, after
considering the matters before it, the court either believes
it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a
prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the
particular case, to act up on the supposition that it exists.
The court undertakes this exercise of examining whether
the facts alleged including the particular criminal acts
attributed to the accused are proved or not.
20. It is also to be noted that the law does not contemplate
stitching the pieces of evidence in a watertight manner, for
the standard of proof in a criminal case is not proof
beyond all doubts but only beyond reasonable doubt. In
other words, if a clear picture emerges on piecing together
all evidence which indicates beyond reasonable doubt of
the role played by the accused in the perpetration of the
crime, the court holds the accused criminally liable and
punishes them under the provisions of the penal code, in
contradistinction to the requirement of proof based on the
preponderance of probabilities as in case of civil
proceedings.
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.04
17:26:08
+0530
FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.15/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
26. Thus, the requirement of law in criminal trials is not to
prove the case beyond all doubt but beyond reasonable
doubt and such doubt cannot be imaginary, fanciful, trivial
or merely a possible doubt but a fair doubt based on
reason and common sense….”
13. Law relating to appreciation of evidence of the witnesses has
been elaborated by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as “Satish @
Bombaiya V. State” { 44 (1991) DLT 561} and it was held that :-
“…….. While appreciating the evidence of a witness
approach must be whether the evidence of the witness,
read as a whole, appears to have a ring of truth. Once that
impression is formed then undoubtedly it is necessary for
the Court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly
keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks, and
infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and
evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general
tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether
earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it
unworthy of behalf. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters
not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach
by taking sentences torn out of context here and there
from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical
error committed by the investigating officer not going to
the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit
rejection of the evidence as a whole. The main thing to be
seen is, whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the
matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof. In the
former case, the defense may be justified in seeking
advantage of the inconsistencies in the evidence. In the
latter, however, no such benefit may be available to it.
That is a salutary method of appreciation of evidence in
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.04
17:26:14
+0530FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.16/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
criminal cases.”
14. Law relating to appreciation of ocular evidence has been
elaborated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as “Shahaja @
Shahjahan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh V. State of Maharashtra” {Crl. Appeal No.
739/2017 decided on 14/07/2022} and it was held that :-
“27. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task.
There is no fixed or straight-jacket formula for
appreciation of the ocular evidence. The judicially evolved
principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal
case can be enumerated as under :-
I. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the
approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read
as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that
impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the
Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping
in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities
pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them
to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the
evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier
evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it
unworthy of belief.
II. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence
had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general
tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court
which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight
to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and
unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would
not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of
minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.04
17:26:20
+0530FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.17/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
details.
III. When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite
possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts
should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in
the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the
credibility of his version that the court is justified in
jettisoning his evidence.
IV. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the
core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking
sentences torn out of context here or there from the
evidence, attaching importance to some technical error
committed by the investigating officer not going to the
root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of
the evidence as a whole.
V. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations
falling in the narration of an incident (either as between
the evidence of two witnesses or as between two
statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach
for judicial scrutiny.
VI. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a
photographic memory and to recall the details of an
incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the
mental screen.
VII. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken
by events. The witness could not have anticipated the
occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The
mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned
to absorb the details.
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.04
17:26:26
+0530
FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.18/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
VIII. The powers of observation differ from person to
person. What one may notice, another may not. An object
or movement might emboss its image on one person’s
mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of
another.
IX. By and large people cannot accurately recall a
conversation and reproduce the very words used by them
or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport
of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to
be a human tape recorder.
X. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time
duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their
estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the
time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to
make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters.
Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which
varies from person to person.
XI. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall
accurately the sequence of events which take place in
rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable
to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
XII. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be
overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross
examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up
facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up
details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The
sub- conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates
on account of the fear of looking foolish or being
disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and
honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him.
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.04
17:26:31
+0530
FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.19/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
XIII. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent
with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to
amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has
the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the
later statement is at variance with the former to some
extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness.”
15. FINDINGS
(i) Testimonies of complainant, injured and eye-witness
In the present case, charge for the offence
u/s. 307/325/452/506-II/34 IPC was framed against all accused.
It is the case of the prosecution that on 30/09/2017 at about 6:30
PM at Plot No. 9/15, S-Block, Shiv Vihar, Vikas Nagar, New Delhi within the
jurisdiction of Police Station Ranhola, accused Sadam, Mohd. Minhaz, Mohd.
Iqbal and CCL ‘MS’ in furtherance of their common intention had committed
criminal house trespass by entering into the above-mentioned plot of the
complainant Pawan Kumar having made preparation for committing offence of
causing hurt to Pawan Kumar and Surender Tyagi in the plot of the
complainant and they were carrying the danda and iron rod. It is also the case
of the prosecution that all accused and CCL ‘MS’ in furtherance of their
common intention had caused grievous injuries to the complainant Pawan
Kumar with danda, iron rod and fist and leg blows on his head and other body
parts, with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if
death would have been caused to the complainant Pawan Kumar, Digitally
they all
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.04
17:26:36
+0530FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.20/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
would be guilty of committing the murder of complainant Pawan Kumar. It is
also the case of the prosecution that all accused and CCL ‘MS’ in furtherance
of their common intention had also voluntarily caused grievous injuries to
injured Surender Tyagi. It is also the case of the prosecution that all accused
and CCL ‘MS’ in furtherance of their common intention had also criminally
intimidated and threatened the complainant Pawan Kumar, to cause his death.
PW-1 is the injured, PW-2 is the complainant/ injured in the
present case. PW-3 is stated to be the eye-witness of the incident.
The sanctity of testimony of injured witness has been elaborated
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as “Abdul Sayeed V. State
of Madhya Pradesh” {(2010) 10 SCC 259} and it was held that:-
“26. The question of the weight to be attached to the
evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the
course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed
by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has
himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of
such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable,
as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of
his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to
spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate
someone. “Convincing evidence is required to discredit
an injured witness…….
28. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect
that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a
special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact
that the injury to the witness is an in-built guarantee of
his presence at the scene of the crime and because the
witness will not want to let his actual assailant go
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.04
17:26:41 +0530FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.21/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for
the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of
the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are
strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis
of major contradictions and discrepancies therein”.
Law relating to appreciation of evidence of injured eye-witness
has been elaborated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as
“Balu Sudam Khalde & Anr. V. The State of Maharashtra” {(2023) 13 SCC
365} and it was held that:-
” When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be
appreciated, the under- noted legal principles enunciated
by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:-
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and
place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there
are material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it
must be believed that an injured witness would not allow
the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the
accused.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater
evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist,
their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on
account of some embellishment in natural conduct or
minor contradictions.
(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial
embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness,
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.04
17:26:48 +0530FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.22/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment
should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not
the whole evidence.
(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must
be taken into consideration and discrepancies which
normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of
time should be discarded”.
During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel
for all accused that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have not supported the case of the
prosecution and turned hostile and in view of the same, benefit of doubt be
given to all accused.
It is well settled law that evidence of a hostile witness cannot be
discarded as a whole and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law can
be used by the prosecution or the defence.
Law relating to hostile witness has been elaborated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as ” Rajesh Yadav & Anr. V.
State of UP” {Criminal Appeal No.339-340/2014 decided on 04/02/2022} and
it was held that :-
“The expression “hostile witness” does not find a place in
the Indian Evidence Act. It is coined to mean testimony of
a witness turning to depose in favour of the opposite party.
We must bear it in mind that a witness may depose in
favour of a party in whose favour it is meant to be giving
through his chief examination, while later on change his
view in favour of the opposite side. Similarly, there would
be cases where a witness does not support the case of the
party starting from chief examination itself. This
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.04
17:27:42
+0530FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.23/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
classification has to be borne in mind by the Court. With
respect to the first category, the Court is not denuded of its
power to make an appropriate assessment of the evidence
rendered by such a witness. Even a chief examination
could be termed as evidence. Such evidence would
become complete after the cross examination. Once
evidence is completed, the said testimony as a whole is
meant for the court to assess and appreciate qua a fact.
Therefore, not only the specific part in which a witness
has turned hostile but the circumstances under which it
happened can also be considered, particularly in a
situation where the chief examination was completed and
there are circumstances indicating the reasons behind the
subsequent statement, which could be deciphered by the
court. It is well within the powers of the court to make an
assessment, being a matter before it and come to the
correct conclusion.”
It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as
“Neeraj Dutta V. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)” {Criminal Appeal
No.1669/2009 decided on 15/12/2022} that :-
“Therefore, this Court cautioned that even if a witness is
treated as “hostile” and is cross-examined, his evidence
cannot be written off altogether but must be considered
with due care and circumspection and that part of the
testimony which is creditworthy must be considered and
acted upon. It is for the judge as a matter of prudence to
consider the extent of evidence which is creditworthy for
the purpose of proof of the case. In other words, the fact
that a witness has been declared “hostile” does not result
in an automatic rejection of his evidence. Even, the
evidence of a “hostile witness” if it finds corroboration
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.04
17:27:50
+0530FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.24/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
from the facts of the case may be taken into account while
judging the guilt of the accused. Thus, there is no legal bar
to raise a conviction upon a “hostile witness” testimony if
corroborated by other reliable evidence.”
PW-1 is the injured in the present case. PW-2 is the
complainant/injured in the present case. PW-3 is stated to be the eye-witness of
the incident.
PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have not supported the case of the
prosecution and turned hostile.
PW-1 in his examination-in-chief had deposed that a quarrel had
taken place between him and some public persons and in the quarrel, he had
sustained injuries on his both hands and forearms. PW-1 in his examination-in-
chief had also deposed that on the next day, police came to his house and
inquired from him regarding the assailants, to which, he replied that he does
not know as to who had caused the injury to him on the date of incident.
During the course of his examination, PW-1 had not identified all accused and
when all accused were shown to PW-1, he had stated that they are not the same
persons, who had caused injuries to him and his son on the date of incident.
PW-2 in his examination-in-chief had deposed that on the date of
incident, he alongwith his father went to their plot situated in Shiv Vihar, New
Delhi and found that some persons were quarreling with each other and when
he had objected for the same, the aforesaid persons started quarreling with him
and thereafter, he went inside his aforesaid plot. PW-2 in his examination-in-
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.04
17:27:57
+0530
FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.25/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
chief had also deposed that after about one hour, 20-25 persons came at their
plot and started beating him and his father with dandas, due to which, he and
his father sustained injuries. PW-2 in his examination-in-chief had also deposed
that thereafter, he had called the police at 100 number and after some time,
police officials came at the spot and took him and his father to DDU hospital,
where they were medically treated. PW-2 in his examination-in-chief had also
deposed that on the next day, police officials came to their house and recorded
his statement Ex.PW-2/A themselves and the same is not in his hand writing
and on the next day of the incident, police officials took his signatures on blank
papers at his house. During the course of cross-examination of PW-2 by Addl.
PP for the State, when the attention of PW-2 was drawn towards his complaint
Ex.PW-2/A, he had denied having made any such complaint before the police
or stated any such facts to the police. During the course of his examination,
PW-2 had not identified all accused and when all accused were shown to PW-2,
he had stated that all accused are not the same persons, who had beaten him
and his father on the date of incident.
PW-3 in his examination-in-chief had deposed that on
30/09/2017, in the evening time, he was going towards the shop for purchasing
the milk and when he reached near the plot of Pawan Tyagi, he saw that public
persons were gathered there and he had made a call at 100 number and after
some time, police officials of PCR came there and thereafter, he left the spot
and he does not know as to what had happened thereafter. During the course of
his examination, PW-3 had not identified all accused and when all accused
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.04
17:28:02
+0530FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.26/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
were shown to PW-3, he had stated that he cannot say whether the accused
persons, who are present in the Court, had caused injuries to Pawan Tyagi and
his father as he was not present at the spot at the time of incident.
PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 had not supported the case of the
prosecution and turned hostile. In the present case, nothing incriminating had
been deposed by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 in their testimonies against all
accused.
(ii) Identity of all accused
During the course of their examination, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3
have not identified all accused as assailants.
On the other hand, PW-7, who is the police official/IO, during
the course of his examination had duly identified all accused. During the course
of his examination-in-chief, PW-4 had identified the accused Mohd. Iqbal but
he identified the accused Sadam as accused Mohd. Minhaz and accused Mohd.
Minhaz as accused Sadam. However, PW-4 in his cross-examination by Addl.
PP for the State had deposed that due to lapse of time, he had wrongly
identified the accused Sadam as Mohd. Minhaz and accused Mohd. Minhaz as
Sadam.
Admittedly, the aforesaid police officials i.e. PW-4 and PW-7 are
not the eye-witnesses of the incident.
Hence, identity of all accused as assailants have not been
proved/established by the injured/PW-1, complainant/injured/PW-2 and eye-
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.04
17:28:07
+0530
FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.27/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
witness/PW-3.
(iii) Presence of all accused
PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 had not supported the case of the
prosecution and turned hostile. During the course of their examination, PW-1,
PW-2 and PW-3 had not identified all accused. In the present case, nothing
incriminating had been deposed by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 in their testimonies
against all accused to show that all accused were present at the spot at the time
of incident and all accused had committed the offence. Factum regarding
presence of all accused at the place of incident at the relevant time and date has
not been established/ proved by the prosecution.
(iv) Medical witness
In the present case, medical witnesses, who had prepared the
MLCs of PW-1 and PW-2 have not been examined by the prosecution.
On 14/03/2026, it was submitted by Addl. PP for the State that in
the present case, all material witnesses including injured persons have already
been examined and in view of the testimonies of injured persons, no fruitful
purpose will be served by examining the remaining prosecution witnesses.
(v) Identity of the case property
It is the case of the prosecution that on the date of incident, at the
relevant time, date and place, all accused and CCL ‘MS’ in furtherance of their
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.04
17:28:12
+0530FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.28/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
common intention had caused the injuries to complainant Pawan Kumar and
his father Sh. Surender Tyagi with danda, iron rod and fist and leg blows.
During the course of examination of PW-2, it was submitted by
PW-2 that he cannot identify the weapons of offence i.e. wooden stick/danda
Ex.P-4 and iron rod Ex.P-5. During the course of examination of PW-1 and
PW-3, weapons of offence i.e. Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-5 were not put to PW-1 and
PW-3 to prove the identity of the same.
Hence, identity of weapons of offence i.e. Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-5 has
not been established/proved by the prosecution.
(vi) Contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses
As per case of the prosecution, after the incident, injured Pawan
Kumar and Sh. Surender Tyagi were medically examined in DDU hospital,
New Delhi. PW-2 in his testimony had deposed that police took him and his
father to DDU hospital where they were medically treated. On the other hand,
PW-1 in his testimony had deposed that he alongwith his son Pawan went to
the clinic of doctor situated in Vikas Puri, where he was medically treated.
Testimony of PW-1 is contradictory with the case of the prosecution and
testimony of PW-2 in this regard. No reasonable explanation has been adduced
on record by the prosecution for the same.
PW-1 in his testimony had deposed that a quarrel had taken place
between him and some public persons and in the quarrel, he had sustained the
injuries. On the other hand, PW-2 in his testimony had deposed that when he
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.04
17:28:18
+0530FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.29/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
alongwith his father reached at their plot situated in Shiv Vihar, New Delhi,
they found that some persons were quarreling with each other and when he had
objected for the same, the aforesaid persons started quarreling with him.
Testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 are contradictory in this regard. No reasonable
explanation has been adduced on record by the prosecution for the same.
PW-2 in his testimony had deposed that 20-25 persons came at
their plot and started beating him and his father with dandas, due to which, he
and his father sustained the injuries. PW-2 in his testimony had also deposed
that assailants were about 20-25 persons. On the other hand, in the complaint
of the complainant Ex.PW-2/A, there is no mentioning of 20-25 assailants. In
Ex.PW-2/A, there is mentioning of 3-4 boys/assailants. Testimony of PW-2 is
contradictory with the contents of his complaint Ex.PW-2/A in respect of
number of assailants. No reasonable explanation has been adduced on record
by the prosecution for the same.
PW-2 in his testimony had deposed that on the next day, police
officials came to their house and recorded his statement Ex.PW-2/A. On the
other hand, PW-4 in his testimony had deposed that on 01/10/2017, injured
Pawan himself came to police station and he had recorded his statement
Ex.PW-2/A. Testimonies of PW-2 and PW-4 are contradictory in respect of
place of recording of Ex.PW-2/A. No reasonable explanation has been
adduced on record by the prosecution for the same.
PW-2 in his examination-in-chief had deposed that he had called
the police at 100 number. On the other hand, PW-3 in his examination-in-chief
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.04
17:28:24
+0530FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.30/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
had deposed that he had made a call at 100 number. Testimonies of PW-2 and
PW-3 are contradictory in this regard. In the statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C.
Mark PW-3/A of PW-3, it is nowhere stated that PW-3 had called the police at
100 number. Even otherwise, in the charge-sheet, it is nowhere mentioned that
in the present case, two PCR calls were made at 100 number. No reasonable
explanation has been adduced on record by the prosecution for the same.
(vii) Testimonies of police witnesses
In the present case, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 are the police
officials. From the testimonies of the aforesaid police witnesses, it is evident
that investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present
case during the course of investigation have been substantially proved by the
aforesaid police witnesses.
PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 are the IOs in the present case,
who deposed regarding investigation conducted by them and they duly proved
on record the documents relating to the investigation conducted by them.
16. CONTENTIONS OF COUNSEL FOR ALL ACCUSED
(a) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel
for all accused that in the present case, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have not
supported the case of the prosecution and they have turned hostile and in view
of the same, benefit of doubt be given to all accused.
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.04.04
17:28:29
+0530
FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.31/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
As already discussed above that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have not
supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. Factum regarding
sustaining the injuries by them had not been denied by PW-1 and PW-2 in their
testimonies. However, in the present case, nothing incriminating had been
deposed by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 in their testimonies against all accused.
(b) During the course of final arguments, it was submitted by counsel
for all accused that in the present case, there are material contradictions,
inconsistencies and improvements in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses
and in view of the same, benefit of doubt to be given to all accused.
In the present case, there are number of material contradictions,
inconsistencies and improvements in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses
as discussed above. The prosecution has failed to clarify regarding the
aforesaid material contradictions, inconsistencies and improvements in the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
17. In the present case, identity of accused persons, role of accused
persons, nature of injuries sustained by the complainant and injured, mode &
manner of offence, motive, intention and knowledge are relevant factors. The
aforesaid factors have not been proved on record by the prosecution.
In the present case, injured/PW-1, complainant/injured/PW-2 and
eye-witness/PW-3 have not supported the case of the prosecution and turned
hostile. In the present case, there are number of material contradictions,
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.04
17:28:34 +0530FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.32/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
inconsistencies and improvements in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses
as discussed above. The prosecution has failed to clarify regarding the
aforesaid material contradictions, inconsistencies and improvements in the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
18. All the essential ingredients of the offence
u/s. 307/325/452/506-II/34 IPC have not been proved on record by the
prosecution against all accused.
Prosecution has failed to prove the fact that on 30/09/2017 at
about 6:30 PM at Plot No. 9/15, S-Block, Shiv Vihar, Vikas Nagar, New Delhi
within the jurisdiction of Police Station Ranhola, accused Sadam, Mohd.
Minhaz, Mohd. Iqbal and CCL ‘MS’ in furtherance of their common intention
had committed criminal house trespass by entering into the above-mentioned
plot of the complainant Pawan Kumar having made preparation for committing
offence of causing hurt to Pawan Kumar and Surender Tyagi in the plot of the
complainant and they were carrying the danda and iron rod. Prosecution has
also failed to prove the fact that all accused and CCL ‘MS’ in furtherance of
their common intention had caused grievous injuries to the complainant Pawan
Kumar with danda, iron rod and fist and leg blows on his head and other body
parts, with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if
death would have been caused to the complainant Pawan Kumar, they all
would be guilty of committing the murder of complainant Pawan Kumar.
Prosecution has also failed to prove the fact that all accused and CCL ‘MS’ in
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.04.04
17:28:39 +0530FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.33/34
State V. Sadam & Ors.
furtherance of their common intention had also voluntarily caused grievous
injuries to injured Surender Tyagi. Prosecution has also failed to prove the fact
that all accused and CCL ‘MS’ in furtherance of their common intention had
also criminally intimidated and threatened the complainant Pawan Kumar, to
cause his death.
19. CONCLUSION
Applying priori and posteriori reasonings, this Court is held that
the prosecution has not been able to establish/ prove its case against all accused
Sadam, Mohd. Minhaz and Mohd. Iqbal for the offence
u/s. 307/325/452/506-II/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, all accused Sadam, Mohd. Minhaz and Mohd. Iqbal
are acquitted for the offence u/s. 307/325/452/506-II/34 IPC.
Digitally signed by VIJAY SHANKAR VIJAY Date: SHANKAR 2026.04.04 Announced in the open Court 17:28:45 on 04/04/2026 +0530 (VIJAY SHANKAR) ASJ-04 (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FIR No. 664/2017 PS Ranhola Page No.34/34
