Delhi District Court
State vs Veerendra on 21 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ISRA ZAIDI: JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-04, NORTH EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
JUDGMENT
Cr. No. of the case 464905/2015
CNR Number DLNE020003952010
FIR Number 107/2009
Police Station New Usman Pur
Name of the Complainant/Informant Sh. Sumit Kumar
Name of the Accused, his 1. Veerendra (abated)
parentage and address
2. Sangeeta Verma
W/o Sh. Veerendra Kumar
3. Varsha Verma
D/o Sh. Veerendra Kumar
Both R/o B-364, Gali No. 3, 2 nd Pushta,
Sonia Vihar, Delhi.
Date of Commission of offence 30.03.2009
Date of institution 30.11.2010
Offences complained of U/s. 363/342/323/34 IPC
Offences charged of U/s. 342/323 against accused Sangeeta
Verma & U/s. 342/363/323 against
accused Varsha Verma
Plea of the Accused Pleaded not guilty
Date of final arguments 21.07.2026
Date of pronouncement of Judgment 21.07.2026
Final Order Acquitted
FIR No. 107/2009 State Vs. Veerendra Page 1 of 22
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA
Date:
ZAIDI
ZAIDI 2026.07.21
15:04:14
+0800
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
01. Succinctly stated the facts discernible from the present complaint are
that complainant was returning to his house after appearing for his class Xth exam.
He was waiting to board a bus. One girl, who also appeared in that exam, also
boarded the same bus and while boarding the same, due to rough jostling with the
girl, he had a scuffle with her. She slapped the boy. On 23.03.2009, a boy came along
with that girl, who threatened the complainant. On 28.03.2009, that girl was staring
at the complainant due to which, the complainant and his friend Manish left the spot.
On 30.03.2009 at about 9.45 a.m., he reached his exam centre and at that time, one
person came on a bike bearing registration No. DL-5ST-8549 along with that girl. He
held the complainant and gave beatings to him with a helmet due to which, helmet
got broken. He was taken by that person on a bike. Meanwhile, he lost consciousness
and when he regained his consciousness, he was lying on the floor of the house of
that girl. He was beaten by leg, fists and rod blows. He sustained injuries on his
head and his shirt got drenched in blood. The lady present in the house poured some
red colour substance over his head and face and washed his blood stained shirt. She
made him wear the same shirt which was washed by her. He was set free and was
dropped to the school by a motorcycle, due to which he missed his class Xth board
exams. It is also stated in the complaint that he saw the name plate on the house as
3/384 in the name of Veerendra. Thereafter, he was treated at Jag Pravesh Hospital.
Thereafter, an FIR was lodged against Veerendra under section 363/342/323 IPC.
COURT PROCEEDINGS
02. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under sections
363/342/323/34 IPC was filed before the court against the accused persons namely
Veerendra and Sangeeta Verma. Subsequently, the supplementary charge sheet was
filed qua accused Varsha Verma. The then Learned Magistrate took cognizance and
accused persons were summoned to face the trial. On their appearance in the Court,
FIR No. 107/2009 State Vs. Veerendra Page 2 of 22
Digitally
signed by
ISRA
ISRA ZAIDI
ZAIDI Date:
2026.07.21
15:04:22
+0800
copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to them as per
norms. Thereafter, vide order dated 07.06.2023, charge under sections 342/323 IPC
was framed against accused Sangeeta Verma and u/s 342/363/323 IPC was framed
against the accused Varsha Verma to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Thereafter, the matter was listed for PE.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
03. In order to prove and substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined
following witnesses.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES S. No. Witness No. Name of the witness 01. PW1 Sh. Sumit Kumar 02. PW2 Sh. Netrapal 03. PW3 Sh. Lalit 04. PW4 HC Puneet 05. PW5 W/HC Priti Sharma 06. PW6 Ms. Rashmi Malhotra 07. PW7 HC Rakhi 08. PW8 Inspt. Amit Kumar DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE PROSECUTION S. No. Exhibits Nature of documents
1. Ex. PW1/A MLC of injured/complainant Sumit
2. Ex. PW1/B Statement of injured/complainant Sumit
3. Ex. PW4/A Arrest Memo of accused Veerendra Singh
4. Ex. PW5/A Arrest Memo of accused Sangeeta
5. Ex. PW8/A Seizure Memo of Admit Card, Letter of CBSE,
one Photograph of the complainant
FIR No. 107/2009 State Vs. Veerendra Page 3 of 22
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA ZAIDI
Date:
ZAIDI 2026.07.21
15:04:28
+0800
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS U/S. 313 Cr.PC
04. Joint statement of accused Sangita Verma and Varsha Verma u/s 313
Cr.PC were recorded on 22.04.2026. Accused Sangeeta Verma stated that she has
been falsely implicated by the complainant in this case. Complainant never came to
his house. He never wrongfully confined him or give any beatings to him. Whereas,
accused Varsha stated that complainant Sumit Kumar used to chase her and on the
day of incident, he tried to molest her in the bus, that is why, she caught hold the
collar of complainant Sumit Kumar and due to the said reason, public persons present
in the bus, gave beatings to the complainant Sumit Kumar and after deboarding from
bus, he made a false plan of his kidnapping just with a view to take revenge from her
and her family and falsely implicated in the present case. However, they did not lead
evidence in their defence despite opportunity.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
05. The court heard final arguments on behalf of the both the parties on
21.07.2026. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons submitted that the case against the
accused persons are false and frivolous and has prayed that accused persons be
acquitted of the offence charged. Learned Substitute APP for the state submitted that
accused persons be convicted of the offences under the above-mentioned sections as
there is sufficient evidence on record to convict the accused persons. This court has
heard the submissions of Learned. Substitute APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for
the accused persons. The court has also diligently gone through the charge-sheet,
documents, evidence recorded and the entire material on record.
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUST DECISION OF THE CASE
06. In the instant case, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused
FIR No. 107/2009 State Vs. Veerendra Page 4 of 22
Digitally
signed by
ISRA
ISRA ZAIDI
ZAIDI Date:
2026.07.21
15:04:33
+0800
persons, the prosecution had to prove the following ingredients of the offences
punishable u/s 342/363/323 IPC beyond reasonable doubt:
Section 342 IPC:
“Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to one year, or with fine which
may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”
Section 323 IPC:
“Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334,
voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one
thousand rupees, or with both.”
Section 363 IPC:
“Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from
lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend
to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
07. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the
prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the
accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that
points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be
weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
08. PW1 Sumit Kumar, in his examination in chief deposed that on
18.03.2009, after the board exams of class XII in between 01:30 pm 02:00 pm, he
was going towards his house and had taken the bus from Usmanpur Pushta, which
was too much crowd on the gate of the bus and some how accused Varsha was pushed
in the crowd. He deposed that she immediately caught hold his collar and stated to
me that “theek se khada ho ja”, on which he apologized her that she was pushed. He
deposed that he got released his collar by the hands of accused Varsha and left the
FIR No. 107/2009 State Vs. Veerendra Page 5 of 22
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA
Date:
ZAIDI
ZAIDI 2026.07.21
15:04:38
+0800
place and took another bus to reach back at his home. He deposed that on the next
paper i.e. on 23.03.2009 when he was going to the same school for appearing his
exam, accused Varsha was accompanied by one of her associate and Varsha had
pointed onwards me and shown him to that boy with whom she was accompanied.
09. He deposed that nothing was occurred on that paper by the hands of
accused Varsha. He further deposed that on 28.03.2009, he again reached at his centre
and was waiting outside the school for opening of the gate. He further deposed that
one bike and one scooter came there and Varsha was accompanied three men and
thereafter, introduced him with her associates. He deposed that thereafter, all three
persons started beating him by the helmet and the same was broken. He deposed that
they took him on their bike and taken him to some unknown place. He deposed that
he was not in the condition to rescue himself as he sustained injuries from the beating
given by the accused and their associates. He deposed that he was semi conscious
and had seen the unknown place and felt that that was the house. He deposed that the
person who took him on his bike, had hit on his head by the iron rod and all of them
were abusing him badly and his shirt also got torn.
10. He deposed that his shirt was totally blood stained and they took his shirt
and washed the same. He deposed that they also poured some oil (may be it was
engine oil red in colour) upon him as well as on his head so that bleeding could be
stopped. He deposed that the person who gave him brutal beatings, left the house and
both the accused persons were present there. He deposed that after 3-4 hours,
somehow, he rescued himself and succeeded to fled away from the spot and
thereafter, he reached at his Khajuri school, Sonia Vihar and one dispensary was
located nearby the school, but the same was closed. He deposed that he entered into
school and met the Principal who called his parents and stated that he had been
kidnapped by some persons, but he succeeded to reach at the school after the
incident, on which his both the brothers came at the school. He deposed that the
Principal of the school also called the police who after some time reached there andFIR No. 107/2009 State Vs. Veerendra Page 6 of 22
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA ZAIDI
Date:
ZAIDI 2026.07.21
15:04:44
+0800
took him to JPC hospital for providing the medical treatment. He further deposed that
in the same night, he got discharged from the hospital. He deposed that his statement
on pretext of present incident get recorded in the school itself. He could not say
whether any of the accused persons had been arrested in his presence. He deposed
that police had inquired him for about 2-3 times in the present case and also recorded
his statement. He deposed that his last exam was missed due to the present incident.
11. During leading questions, asked by Ld. APP for the State, he deposed
that the date of incident is 30.03.2009 and due to the lapse of long time of 15 years he
had mentioned the incorrect date as 28.03.2009. During cross-examination by Ld.
Defence Counsel, he testified that he had his English exam of class 10 th on the day of
incident. He testified that he had left his house at around 08:00 am in the morning for
the school and the exam was scheduled from 10:00 am to 12:30-01:00 pm. He
testified that he was in his casual clothes and not in school uniform. He deposed that
none of his school mates lived in his neighbourhood. He further testified that on the
day of incident, his brother had dropped him to the school on his motorcycle. He
testified that he might had been around 17 years of age at that time. He testified that
he did not know accused Varsha before the incident. He testified that he had heard the
name of accused Varsha when one of her associates called out her name at the time of
the beating given to him. He testified that he had not met accused Varsha prior to the
day of incident. He further testified that the bus was running from Usman Pur to
Bhajanpura route, but he did not remember the route number, but the bus was heavily
crowded at the time when he boarded the bus. He testified that there were students
from other school also on the bus including students of his school, but he had no
friends available in the bus. He testified that IO did not record statement of any of the
students of the bus in his presence.
12. He testified that he was standing at some distance from accused Varsha,
however, he received a push from behind. He testified that no other passenger was
standing between him and Varsha. He testified that after deboarding from the saidFIR No. 107/2009 State Vs. Veerendra Page 7 of 22
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA
Date:
ZAIDI
ZAIDI 2026.07.21
15:04:49
+0800
bus, he boarded another bus and reached his house at about 03:00 pm. He testified
that on 23.03.2009, he had his last paper of class 10th examination. He testified that
on that day, his brother had dropped him at Pushta, Usman Pur on his motorcycle and
from there he had walked to his school. He testified that he had not informed anyone
in his family about the incident that had happened earlier in the bus. He testified that
Varsha had come on a motorcycle (Hero Honda Passion, black colour) on 23.03.2009
along with one man and he did not know that person before, but he had seen the same
person again on 28.03.2009 and he did not try to find out the same person later on.
He testified that he had stated the details of the bike to the IO in his statement. He
testified that he had not made any PCR call when the beating given to him at the day
of incident.
13. He could not tell the names of the assailant who gave beatings to him at
the time of incident except the accused persons. He testified that he went to the
dispensary for getting the first aid but, he could not tell the name of dispensary, but,
no medical aid were given to him. He could not tell whether school principal call the
police at the school on his behalf or not. He testified that his statement were recorded
by the police at the school and police also record the statement of principal on that
day. He admitted that the incident did not happen in the presence of school principal
and that School principal was not having personal knowledge regarding the incident
and that no statement of any eye witness of the incident was recorded in the present
case. He testified that the statement of his father was recorded by the IO in this case.
He admitted that the incident had not happened in the presence of his father. He
denied all the suggestions, put by Ld. Defence Counsel.
14. PW1 was examined again as a witness after filing of supplementary
chargesheet, where he deposed that on 23.03.2009, he was coming back to his house
from his school and boarded one DTC Bus which was overcrowded and one girl was
standing just next to him. He deposed that due to the crowd, his body part got
touched to her, she caught his collar and he told her that it was done by mistake and
FIR No. 107/2009 State Vs. Veerendra Page 8 of 22
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA
Date:
ZAIDI
ZAIDI 2026.07.21
15:04:56
+0800
thereafter, he stepped down from that bus and took another bus. He further deposed
that on 28.03.2009, the said girl came again with a boy when he was going to school
and indicated towards him and told that boy “yahi who ladka tha” then that boy
replied to her that ” firstly you give your exam then will see him”. He deposed that on
30.03.2009, he reached his school and was waiting for the opening of the gate,
meanwhile, 2-3 persons came on bike and scooter and that girl accompanied them
and they all started beating him. He deposed that he became unconscious and when
he regaining his consciousness, he found himself inside their house.
15. He deposed that they again beaten him by using the iron sticks and
wooden sticks (danda), due to beatings, his shirt was completely blood stained. He
further deposed that to stop the blood which oozing out from his head, they had put
some substance which was looking like engine oil (red colored). He deposed that to
wash out the blood stains, they had removed his shirt and washed it. He deposed that
he heard that those persons were calling one name i.e. Virendra who was
accompanied them and also told him “uss ladke ko hum pakad laye hai”. He deposed
that in the meantime, he got the chance to escape from their and took help of a bike
rider and reached near to his centre and reported this matter to his principal but he
was already aware about the incident as he was informed by his school. He further
deposed that the Principal had already made a complaint to the Police.
16. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he testified that he
might had told to the IO what he had stated in his examination in chief dated
07.11.2025 that on 28.03.2009, the said girl came with a boy when he was moving
towards his school and that girl indicated towards him and told that boy “yahi wo
ladka tha” then the boy replied to her that “firstly you give your exam then will see
him” and shown his statement Ex.PW1/B, where it was not so recorded.
17. He told the IO what he had stated in his examination in chief dated
07.11.25 that on 30.03.2009, he reached his school and he was waiting for the
FIR No. 107/2009 State Vs. Veerendra Page 9 of 22
Digitally
signed by
ISRA
ISRA ZAIDI
ZAIDI Date:
2026.07.21
15:05:02
+0800
opening of the Gate. Meanwhile, 2-3 persons came on bike and scooter and that girl
accompanied them. They all started beating him. He became unconscious and when
he came in consciousness he found himself inside their house. He was Confronted
with the statement Ex.PW1/B wherein it is not so recorded. He told the IO that
accused person put some substance which was looking like engine oil (red in color).
He was confronted with the statement Ex. PW1/B wherein it is not so recorded. He
told the IO what he had stated in his examination in chief dated 07.11.25 on the day
of alleged incident that he heard those person were calling one name i.e. Virender
who was accompanied them and also told him “us ladke ko hum pakad laye”. He was
confronted with the statement Ex.PW1/B wherein it is not so recorded.
18. He told the IO what he had stated in his examination in chief dated
07.11.25 that in the meantime, he got the chance to escape from their and took help of
a bike rider and reached near to his centre. He reported this matter to his principal but
the Principal was already aware about the incident as he was informed by his school.
The Principal had already made a complaint to the Police. He was confronted with
the statement Ex.PW1/11 wherein it is not so recorded.
19. He admitted that he had not disclosed the physical description of the
assailants to the IO at any point of time and that he had not disclosed the descriptions
and the color of the shirt and pant, which he worn on 23.03.09. He could not tell if
any notice was sent by the IO to him to join the investigation. He admitted that he did
not point out the specific place of incident to the IO. He admitted that no site plan
was prepared by IO at his instance. He admitted that he had never made a phone call
on 100 number and th at he had never disclosed the description of the alleged iron rod
and stick to the police and that he had never disclosed his location as well as the
location of assailants and that he had not disclosed the details of driver/owner of the
bike and the description of the bike upon which he allegedly got a chance to escape.
He did not remember whether the IO had recorded the statement of any other person
in his presence. He admitted that he had never disclosed the description and the color
FIR No. 107/2009 State Vs. Veerendra Page 10 of 22
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA ZAIDI
Date:
ZAIDI 2026.07.21
15:05:08
+0800
of the clothes worn by the assailants. He denied all the suggestions, put by Ld.
Defence Counsel.
20. PW2 Sh. Netrapal, in his examination in chief deposed that on
30.03.2009, he was informed by the Principal on the telephonic call that his son has
been kidnapped by some unknown persons and his son had been taken to the JPC
hospital for medical treatment. He further deposed that he immediately rushed
towards the hospital and seen his son who was brutally injured and he also sustained
the injury on his head. He deposed that his son had told him that accused persons had
kidnapped him and gave brutal beatings from the helmet as well as from the iron rod
by which he sustained injuries and thereafter, they poured the oil on him to stop the
bleeding. He deposed that he also stated him that somehow, he rescued him and
succeeded to fled away from the spot and thereafter, he reached at his school and
Principal had informed the police as well as to him. He could not identify the accused
persons as he had not seen them.
21. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he testified that he
was on duty when Principal had informed him regarding the kidnapping of his son by
unknown persons, but, he could not tell the exact time when the call was received by
him. He could not tell who gave his number to principal on that day. He testified that
he did not make any 100 number call when the fact had been come to his knowledge
that his son had been kidnapped by some unknown person. He testified that the
distance between his office and the hospital was about 15 km. He could not tell the
exact time when he reached at the hospital. He testified that when he reached at the
hospital, his son and his other family members were present in the hospital. He
testified that he saw his son who was also given medical aid by the hospital
staff/Doctors. He testified that the police official were also present at the hospital
when he reached. He testified that police official did not record his statement at all in
this case. He admitted that no incident had happened in his presence and that he
deposed on the behest of his son who was the injured in this case. He denied all the
FIR No. 107/2009 State Vs. Veerendra Page 11 of 22
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA
Date:
ZAIDI
ZAIDI 2026.07.21
15:05:14
+0800
suggestions, put by Ld. Defence Counsel.
22. PW3 Lalit, in his examination in chief has deposed that on 30.03.2009,
he received a call from unknown number that his brother namely Sumit had been
kidnapped and he had sustained injuries and he was in hospital, on which, he
immediately went to JPC hospital, wherein, he had seen that his brother in injured
condition. He deposed that the primary treatment was given at JPC hospital to his
brother and Sumit had informed him that accused Veerendra took him in his house
wherein, he was wrongfully confined and after that he was beaten by the accused
persons and left him to Khajuri Khas School by the accused persons. He further
deposed that police official came at the hospital and recorded the statement of his
brother. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he denied all the
suggestions, put by Ld. Defence Counsel.
23. PW4 HC Puneet, in his examination in chief deposed that on
30.03.2009, at about 11:30 a.m., IO/ASI Bishamber Singh received one call regarding
kidnapping of a child, thereafter, he along with IO reached at the spot i.e. Govt.
School, Brahampuri, Delhi and met Principal of the Govt. School of Khajuri Khas
and they came to know through him that one child was kidnapped as he was taken by
bike rider. He deposed that at about 01.00 p.m., IO came to know that the kidnapped
child had been found in the same School where he was studying, thereafter, they
reached there and IO recorded the statement of victim namely Sumit. He deposed that
IO prepared Tehrir and got the FIR registered. He deposed that thereafter, he along
with IO and victim went to the spot i.e. Gali No. 3, Second Pusta Sonia Vihar, Delhi
and found the accused as his house was situated there.
24. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he testified that he
had not lodge any departure entry while leaving the PS for Govt. School Brahampuri
(spot). He did not remember the exact time when they left the PS and that the exact
time when they reached the spot and that whether IO met any other person at the
FIR No. 107/2009 State Vs. Veerendra Page 12 of 22
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA
Date:
ZAIDI
ZAIDI 2026.07.21
15:05:20
+0800
school except the principal and that whether the IO recorded the statement of the
principal at the spot. He did not know through which source, IO came to know that
the kidnapped child had been found. He testified that no clue was found regarding the
bike rider at the spot i.e. CCTV camera or public persons who reported about the
identification of bike. He did not remember whether at the time of recording the
statement of the victim, any family members of victim was present or not. He further
testified that there were some public standing there when IO was recording the
statement of victim. He did not remember whether IO recorded the statement of the
public persons. He testified that victim himself identified the accused before the
arrest of the accused. He did not know whether IO had come across any information
which would suggest that the victim knew the accused prior to the incident in
question. He testified that victim had not stated any other name except the name of
the accused Virender regarding the involvement in the present matter in his presence.
He testified that only victim was accompanied IO and him at the time of arrest of the
accused. He denied all the suggestions, put by Ld. Defence Counsel.
25. PW5 W/HC Priti Sharma, in her examination in chief deposed that on
10.08.2009, he along with IO and victim Sumit reached at H. No. 364, Gali No. 3,
Second Pushta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi, where they met accused Sangeeta and arrested
her. She deposed that thereafter, they went to PS and her statement was recorded by
the IO. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, she admitted that she had
no personal knowledge of the present case. He denied all the suggestions, put by Ld.
Defence Counsel.
26. PW6 Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, in her examination in chief, proved the
document Mark Z which was stamped by concerned Principal G.G.S.S.S of that time.
She was not cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity.
27. PW7 HC Rakhi, in her examination in chief deposed that on
26.08.2013, she along with IO SI Amit reached at the spot i.e. B-364, Gali No. 3,
FIR No. 107/2009 State Vs. Veerendra Page 13 of 22
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA
Date:
ZAIDI
ZAIDI 2026.07.21
15:05:26
+0800
Second Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi, where they met accused Varsha Verma, her mother
Sangeeta and her brother. He further deposed that IO interrogated accused Varsha
Verma regarding the present incident and thereafter, IO had obtained the photocopy
of 10th certificate from accused Varsha Verma.
28. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, she did not lodge
any separate DD entry regarding the departure with SI Amit on that day. She testified
that IO/SI Amit had not obtained his signature upon any documents. She did not
remember whether any public person was present at the time when the accused was
being interrogated. She testified that IO might have recorded his statement at the PS.
He denied all the suggestions, put by Ld. Defence Counsel.
29. PW8 Inspector Amit Kumar, in his examination in chief deposed that
on 23.08.2013, after receiving DD No. 17A dated 23.08.2013, he collected the copy
of chargesheet from VRK. He deposed that he came to know that two accused
persons were already chargesheeted in this case and one alleged accused namely
Varsha was not chargesheeted yet. He deposed that on 25.08.2013, he called the
complainant of the present case, examined him, collected his admit card, letter from
CBSE, one photograph and seized these documents. He deposed that he examined
the complainant and his brother. He further deposed that on 26.08.2013, he along
with Ct. Rakhi reached at the spot i.e. B-364, Gali No. 3, Second Pusta, Sonia Vihar,
Delhi, where they met accused namely Varsha Verma, her mother namely Sangeeta
and her brother. He deposed that accused Varsha also stated that they had beaten that
boy and in this beating, her mother was also involved and thereafter, they had left
Sumit at Khajuri Red Light. He deposed that he had obtained the photocopy of 10th
certificate from accused Varsha Verma and thereafter, he reached at Government Girls
Sr. Sec. School, New Usmanpur, Delhi and from there, he collected the pasting file,
photocopy of admission register and letterhead of Principal. He further deposed that
with the help of these documents, he came to know that at the time of incident,
accused Varsha was major and thereafter, he filed the supplementary chargesheet.
FIR No. 107/2009 State Vs. Veerendra Page 14 of 22
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA ZAIDI
Date:
ZAIDI 2026.07.21
15:05:33
+0800
30. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he admitted that no
prior information of the present case was given to him before the date which he had
mentioned above. He further testified that the statements of the complainant Sumit
and his brother Lalit were recorded at their residence. He testified that no other public
persons were present while recording the statement of the Sumit and Lalit. He did not
remember the DD entry vide which he left the PS on that day. He testified that no
public person was present during the interrogation of accused Varsha except her
mother and brother. He testified that he did not record the disclosure statement of
accused Varsha regarding the fact that she had one argument with one boy namely
Sumit. He denied all the suggestions, put by Ld. Defence Counsel.
31. The prosecution has a duty to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
There is no duty on an accused to purge himself of guilt. Where there is a lingering
doubt, the accused person is given the benefit of the doubt. A Court cannot draw an
inference of guilt from mere suspicion. Suspicion, no matter how strong cannot take
the place of legal proof.
32. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sujit Biswas vs.
State of Assam decided on 28th May, 2013 held as under:-
6. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the
place of proof, and there is a large difference between
something that ‘may be’ proved, and something that ‘will
be proved’. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how
strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of
proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance
between `may be’ and `must be’ is quite large, and divides
vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal
case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures
or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. 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. In such cases, while keeping in mind the
distance between `may be’ true and `must be’ true, the
court must maintain the vital distance between mereFIR No. 107/2009 State Vs. Veerendra Page 15 of 22
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA
Date:
ZAIDI
ZAIDI 2026.07.21
15:05:39
+0800
conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the
touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon
a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features
of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the
evidence brought on record. 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, keeping in mind that a
reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely
probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason
and common sense. (Vide: Hanumant Govind Nargundkar
& Anr. v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343; State through
CBI v. Mahender Singh Dahiya, AIR 2011 SC 1017; and
Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P., AIR 2012 SC 1979).”
33. The rule that every accused person is presumed innocent until he is
proved guilty and that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt is fundamental to the system of justice practiced in
this country and in several other countries. Indeed, it is entrenched in the Constitution
that every person charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed to be innocent
until he is proved or has pleaded guilty. It is a settled principle of criminal law that
the burden always lies upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt and such burden never shifts. Suspicion, however strong,
cannot take the place of legal proof. The evidence brought on record is required to be
tested on the touchstone of reliability, consistency and probability.
34. The prosecution case primarily rests upon the testimony of PW1 Sumit
Kumar, who is the complainant as well as the alleged victim of the offences. PW1
deposed that the incident happened following an altercation in a bus after his Class
XII board examination on 18.03.2009. However, during his further examination in
chief, he stated that the incident occurred after he boarded a bus on 23.03.2009 while
returning from school. However, he further admitted that due to lapse of time he
could not recall the dates. From the testimony of PW1 there appears to be material
improvements in his testimony. In his examination-in-chief, PW1 introduced several
new facts, He deposed that on 28.03.2009 accused Varsha pointed towards him and
stated “yahi wo ladka tha” and then the boy told her that “firstly you give your exam
FIR No. 107/2009 State Vs. Veerendra Page 16 of 22
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA
Date:
ZAIDI
ZAIDI 2026.07.21
15:05:44
+0800
then will see him”. He further deposed that he became unconscious after being beaten
and regained consciousness inside the house of the accused. He also deposed that he
was beaten with iron sticks and wooden sticks and that the assailants referred to a
person named Virender and stated “us ladke ko hum pakad laye” and that he escaped
with the help of an unknown motorcycle rider and that the principal had already been
informed about the incident before his arrival. During cross-examination, each of
these facts was specifically confronted with his previous statements and was found
not recorded therein. These are not minor omissions but material improvements
introduced at a belated stage.
35. It is no longer res integra that sole testimony of complainant can be
relied upon to convict an accused provided the same is reliable and credit-worthy. In
the case of Lallu Manjhi and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand (2003) 2 SCC 401 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had classified oral testimony of witnesses into
three categories wholly reliable, wholly unreliable and neither wholly reliable nor
wholly unreliable. Such improvements in the testimony of the prime witness
adversely affected the credibility of the witness due to the embellished version,
thereby rendering him an unreliable witness.
36. He admitted that he did not know accused Varsha prior to the incident.
He admitted that he had not disclosed the physical description of the alleged
assailants to the IO. He further admitted that he had never disclosed the description of
the alleged iron rod, stick or other weapons used in the assault. He also admitted that
he did not call at 100 No. He could not provide details regarding the clothes worn by
the accused persons or their associates. He admitted that he had never pointed out the
exact place of occurrence to the police and that no site plan was prepared at his
instance. He also admitted that he had not disclosed the location where he was
allegedly confined. Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA ZAIDI
Date:
ZAIDI 2026.07.21
15:05:52
+0800
FIR No. 107/2009 State Vs. Veerendra Page 17 of 22
37. Another circumstance which creates doubt is the absence of any
independent witness despite the alleged occurrence having taken place in a public
area near a school examination centre. According to PW1, he was beaten outside the
school gate by several persons using helmets. Such a scenario attracts the attention of
students, parents, passersby and other members of the public. Yet, no independent
witness has been examined by the prosecution. PW1 himself admitted that no
statement of any eyewitness was recorded in the present case. The prosecution has
also failed to produce any student, teacher, security guard or public person who
witnessed the alleged assault or kidnapping. In case of Pradeep Narayan State of
Maharashtra AIR 1995 SC 1930 held that failure of police to join witness from
locality during search creates doubt about fairness of investigation, benefit of which
must go to the accused.
38. The conduct attributed to the complainant after the alleged kidnapping
also raises questions. According to PW1, he was brutally assaulted, confined for
several hours and sustained bleeding injuries. However, despite allegedly escaping
from the house of the accused, he could neither identify the exact location of the
house. He also failed to disclose the identity or particulars of the motorcycle rider
who allegedly helped him escape. No effort appears to have been made during
investigation to trace that person. The absence of these details considerably weakens
the prosecution story.
39. The evidence of PW2 Netrapal, father of the complainant, does not
advance the prosecution case. PW2 admittedly had no personal knowledge of the
incident. His entire testimony is based upon what was allegedly narrated to him by
his son. During cross-examination, he admitted that no incident had taken place in his
presence and that he was deposing on the basis of information received from his son.
40. It appears that he is not an eye witness to the case of the prosecution. His
testimony is therefore hearsay and cannot be treated as substantive evidence.
FIR No. 107/2009 State Vs. Veerendra Page 18 of 22
Digitally
signed by
ISRA
ISRA ZAIDI
ZAIDI Date:
2026.07.21
15:05:58
+0800
Likewise, PW3 Lalit, brother of the complainant, also had no direct knowledge of the
alleged incident. He merely stated that he received a telephone call and later met his
injured brother in the hospital. Consequently, his testimony also does not constitute
independent corroboration of the prosecution case.
41. At this stage its pertinent to mention section 60 of the Indian Evidence
Act. Section 60 of Indian Evidence Act states that oral evidence must be direct. –
Oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct; that is to say-
“If it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the
evidence of a witness who says he saw it;
If it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the
evidence of a witness who says he heart it;
If it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense
or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of the person
who holds that opinion on those grounds:
Provided that the opinions of experts expressed in any treatise
commonly offered for sale, and the grounds on which such
opinions are held, may be proved by the production of such
treatises if the author is dead or cannot be found, or has become
incapable of giving evidence, or cannot be called as witness
without an amount of delay or expense which the court regards
as unreasonable:
Provided also that, if oral evidence refers to the existence or
condition of any material thing other than a document, the
Court may, if it thinks fit, require the production of such
material thing for its inspection.”
42. It is a cardinal principle of law of evidence that oral evidence must
be direct that is it should be given by the person who has actually perceived it. If
a person himself did not perceive but heard it from someone then such evidence
is not admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. PW2 and PW3 are
merely hearsay witnesses.
43. According to PW1, he approached the Principal after escaping.
According to PW2, the Principal informed him telephonically regarding the
kidnapping. PW4 also stated that he met the principal during investigation. Thus, the
Principal was undoubtedly a material witness but he has not been examined by the
FIR No. 107/2009 State Vs. Veerendra Page 19 of 22
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA ZAIDI
Date:
ZAIDI 2026.07.21
15:06:05
+0800
prosecution. No satisfactory explanation has been offered by the prosecution for non-
examination of such an important witness.
44. The investigation conducted in the present case also suffers from serious
infirmities. PW4 admitted that no clue regarding the alleged motorcycle riders was
found. No public witness was associated during investigation. No statement of any
student or other person present near the examination centre was recorded. No CCTV
footage was collected. No recovery of the helmet, iron rod and wooden stick were
ever recovered. Even the blood-stained clothes allegedly worn by the complainant
were not seized. Such omissions assume significance because the prosecution alleges
a violent assault resulting in bleeding injuries.
45. The prosecution has further failed to establish any reliable link between
the accused persons and the alleged place of confinement. Although PW4 stated that
the victim led the police to the house of accused Veerendra (abated), there is no
independent evidence to establish that the complainant had ever been confined there.
No neighbour from the locality was examined.
46. PW8 stated that during investigation in 2013 accused Varsha allegedly
admitted that she had gone to the examination centre with her father, kidnapped
Sumit, taken him home and beaten him along with her mother. Such a statement is
inadmissible under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act except to the limited
extent of discovery of a fact. Since no recovery or discovery was effected pursuant to
the alleged statement, the same cannot be read as substantive evidence against the
accused.
47. At this stage it is germane to mention section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872.
“Section 27 how much of information received
from the accused may be proved- provided that,
when any fact is deposed to as discovered inFIR No. 107/2009 State Vs. Veerendra Page 20 of 22
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA ZAIDI
Date:
ZAIDI 2026.07.21
15:06:12
+0800
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 facts thereby discovered may be proved.
In the case of Md. Inayatulla Vs. State of
Maharashtra AIR 1976 SC483 it was held that for
the application of section 27 of the IEA the statement
must be split into its components and to separate the
admissible portion. Only those components or
portion which were the immediate cause of discovery
would be relevant and rest must be rejected.”
48. Disclosure statement cannot be admissible there is no recovery
pursuant to the disclosure statement and there is no independent witness to the
same. Moreover, there is a doubt as to the recovery of the alleged case property
from the possession of the accused. Derivative use of custodial statement is not
permissible in law. Disclosure statement is admissible only in evidence if
something is recovered from the accused which is not within the knowledge of
the police before recording the disclosure statement of the accused. Hence, the
same becomes inadmissible in law.
49. Similarly, while there is evidence suggesting that the complainant
sustained injuries, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt
that such injuries were caused by the accused persons in the manner alleged. The
doctors who prepared the MLC of the victim and gave subsequent opinion were not
examined as witnesses. Thus, the MLC has not been proved in accordance with the
provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Moreover, the MLC of the victim does
not mention about any oily or greasy (engine oil substance) as alleged by him which
was poured at his head.
50. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution
must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the burden never shifts. The
accused are entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt.
FIR No. 107/2009 State Vs. Veerendra Page 21 of 22
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA
Date:
ZAIDI
ZAIDI 2026.07.21
15:06:18
+0800
51. It is an adage that law works on the wheels of evidence. Every criminal
trial is a journey of discovering and unfolding the truth. But in the present case no
sufficient evidence is there on record to warrant the conviction of the accused person.
In the case of Prem Singh Yadav Vs. CBI 178 (2011) DLT 529 it was held that where
it is possible to have both views one in favor of prosecution and one in favor of
accused, the later one should prevail. The prosecution could not prove by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In a criminal case the burden of proof is on the
prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The
burden never shifts. An accused enjoys the presumption of innocence. There is no
duty on an accused person to purge himself of guilt. Where there is a lingering doubt,
the accused person is given the benefit of the doubt.
52. For the reasons outlined above, this court is of the considered opinion
that the prosecution has failed to discharge the heavy burden imposed on it by law of
satisfying this court beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.
Consequently, accused namely Sangeeta Verma is acquitted for the offences
punishable U/s. 342/323 IPC and accused Varsha Verma is acquitted for the
offences punishable under sections 342/363/323 IPC.
Pronounced in the open Court on 21.07.2026. Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA ZAIDI
Date:
ZAIDI 2026.07.21
15:06:26
+0800
(Isra Zaidi)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-04
North East District/KKD/Delhi
This judgment contains 22 pages and each page bears my signature.
FIR No. 107/2009 State Vs. Veerendra Page 22 of 22
