Delhi District Court
State vs Shakir And Others on 11 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. KUMAR RAJAT,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-07, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
CNR No. DLSH01-009996-2021
SC No. 349/2021
FIR No. 379/2021
PS Nand Nagri
U/s: 307/34 IPC
STATE
Vs.
1. SHAKIR,
S/o Sh. Mushtkeem,
R/o H. No. E-57, B/355,
Nand Nagri, Delhi.
2. MOHSIN,
S/o Sh. Mehndi Hasan,
R/o H. No. E-57/A-6,
Jhuggi Sunder Nagri, Delhi.
....... Accused persons
Date of Institution of case 13.12.2021
Date of case reserved for Judgment 10.07.2026
Judgment Pronounced on 11.07.2026
Decision Both accused acquitted.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. As per the case of prosecution, DD No. 12A dated
25.06.2021 was received from Dr. Hedgewar Arogya Sansthan,
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 1 of 40
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.07.11
15:23:59 +0530
Delhi to the IO qua admission of injured Manish. IO visited the
said hospital and collected the MLC and the injured was referred
to RML Hospital. Injured was unfit for statement.
Complainant Mithlesh, mother of injured, alleged that
injured was her son and on 24.06.2021 at about 10 PM, her son
Manish had gone to meet his friends i.e. accused Shakir and
Mohsin and at about 4 AM, Manish knocked the door and when
she opened, he saw him in pool of blood and he told her that
accused Shakir and Mohsin had stabbed him and left him in
injured condition and he was taken to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital
from where he was referred to RML Hospital.
2. On the basis of said complaint, FIR No. 379/2021 dt.
20.06.2021 was registered in PS Nand Nagri u/s 307/34 IPC.
After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused Shakir
and Mohsin u/s 307/34 IPC and after filing of charge sheet,
cognizance of offences was taken against accused persons.
CHARGE
3. Charge for the offences punishable u/s 307/34 IPC
was framed against accused Shakir and Mohsin by the Ld.
Predecessor on 21.01.2022. Accused persons pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. Prosecution examined twelve witnesses (12) in its
favour to prove the case.
5. PW1 Mithlesh deposed that she had four children
namely Malti @ Lavika, Manish (now deceased), Kishan and
Raman. On 24.06.2021 at about 10 pm, her son Manish went out
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 2 of 40
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.07.11
15:24:10 +0530
from the house for some work to his friends i.e. accused Shakir
and Mohsin. She went to retire to her bed. At about 4 pm, her son
Manish had knocked the door and shouted ‘ mummy papa mujhe
bachao’. PW1 opened the door and found that her son Manish
was in a pool of blood and blood was all over his clothes and he
was having stabbed wounds over his neck and stomach. PW1
immediately took out the lower lying on the bed and put it on the
neck of her son in order to stop the bleeding. PW1 and her
husband Dharmpal brought her son Manish to Hedgewar
Hospital for his treatment and he was referred to Ram Manohar
Lohia Hospital for further medical treatment. Her son Manish
told them that he was given stab injuries by accused Shakir and
Mohsin when he was with them and was about to leave their
meeting that night. The mobile phone of her son was snatched by
accused Shakir and Mohsin and they were asking him to bring
cigarette, but her son Manish refused to bring the cigarette.
6. PW1 further deposed that thereafter, accused Shakir
and Mohsin became aggressive and gave him stab injuries. Police
met her in the hospital and inquired about the present incident
and also recorded her statement, Ex.PW1/A. Accused Shakir and
Mohsin were known to PW1 prior to present incident as they
used to reside in the same street of her house. PW1 saw the
CCTV footage installed at the hotel near Masjid Sunder Nagri
and also CCTV footage of the provisional store situated opposite
to the hotel wherein it is clearly seen that accused Shakir and
Mohsin were taking to her son Manish in the street and after
sometime, her son Manish was seen in the pool of blood and he
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 3 of 40
KUMAR Digitally signed
by KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.07.11
15:24:22 +0530
was followed by accused Shakir and Mohsin. PW1 also handed
over the bloodstained pant of her son Manish, which was seized
vide seizure memo, Ex.PW1/B. After 2-3 days, accused Shakir
and Mohsin were arrested near Kabristan, Sunder Nagri in her
presence vide arrest memos, Ex. Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D
respectively. Her mobile phone having SIM no. 9810197525 was
not recovered.
7. PW1 further deposed that her son Manish (now
deceased) was carrying her mobile phone make Tecno having
SIM No. 9810197525 on 24.06.2021 as he took the same before
leaving the house. When her son Manish came at her house, he
was only wearing a pant on the lower portion of the body and he
was wearing nothing on the upper portion of the body. Doctor at
RML Hospital asked her to change cloths of her son Manish,
then, she changed the wearing pant of her son Manish and kept
the same with her and handed over the same to the IO on
08.09.2021. PW1 correctly identified one pant (gray/saleti
colour), Ex.P1 having brown colour stains as belonging to her
son Manish, which was seized by the IO in her presence. PW1
correctly identified accused Shakir and Mohsin.
8. Injured/PW2 Manish was partly examined in chief
wherein he deposed that accused Shakir and Mohsin stabbed him
on said day and correctly identified them and then he expired, so
his testimony was not complete and thus, his evidence will not be
read in evidence.
9. PW3 HC Sudhir deposed that on 26.06.2021, he was
posted as HC at PS Nand Nagri and on that day, he was working
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 4 of 40
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.07.11
15:24:28 +0530
as DO from 4 PM to 12 midnight. At around 11.20 PM, ASI
Mahender handed over him a rukka and he made endorsement on
the original rukka and his endorsement is Ex.PW3/A. He
registered the FIR No. 379/2021, Ex.PW3/B. He also issued
certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act, Ex.PW3/C.
10. PW4 Dharampal deposed that he has his wife
Mithlesh, daughter Lavika and sons Manish (now deceased),
Kishan and Raman in his family. His son Manish passed only 8 th
class and in June, 2021, he was doing nothing. His wife used to
work at Yamuna Complex, Vivek Vihar, Delhi as Sweeper (Saaf
Safai Ka Kam) and on 24.06.2021 at about 9.30 PM, his son
Manish left his house after having food by saying that he would
return after some time. They all slept. On the next morning at
about 4 AM, his son Manish came at the house and knocked the
door of the house. PW4 opened the door and saw that ” Manish
khoon se latpath ghayal tha” and Manish stated to PW4 that
“Papa mujhe hospital le chalo, mere yaar doston ne mujhe mara
hai”. They immediately took his son to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital
and he was referred to RML Hospital by the doctor. His son
Manish got the treatment at RML Hospital and statements of his
wife and Manish were recorded by the police. Manish told him
that accused Shakir and Mohsin attacked him due to which he
received injuries on the day of incident. IO recorded the
statement of PW4. On 08.09.2021, PW4 along with his wife
Mithlesh and son Manish went to the PS Nand Nagri where his
wife handed over the pant of Manish, which he was wearing at
the time of incident to the IO. IO sealed the same and seized it
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 5 of 40
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
RAJAT
RAJAT 2026.07.11
15:24:35
+0530
vide seizure memo, Ex.PW1/B and the said pant, Ex.P1 was
correctly identified by PW4.
11. PW4 further deposed that his son Manish disclosed
him that accused Shakir and Mohsin caused injuries to him by
knife (chaku) and fled away from the spot leaving him in half
dead (adhmara) condition. PW4 correctly identified accused
Shakir and Mohsin in the Court.
12. PW5 Dr. Ravi Shekhar deposed that on 25.06.2021,
he was posted as CMO in Casualty of Dr. Hedgewar Hospital. On
that day, patient namely Manish was brought in the casualty and
he examined him vide MLC no. 4698/2021. After examination
following injuries were found:
1. Deep incised wound measuring 10×5 cm muscle deep over left
side of neck.
2. Deep incised wound measuring 4×2 cm muscle deep over
anterior neck.
3. Incised wound measuring 2x1x1 cm on lower sternum.
13. PW5 further deposed that after giving primary
treatment, the patient was referred to SR surgery for further
treatment and management. His detailed examination is
mentioned from Point A to Point A1 on MLC, Ex. PW5/A. On
12.09.2021, on the request of IO, he preserved the blood sample
of patient Manish vide MLC no. 2350/2021 and handed over the
same to IO after making a pulanda of the same and sealed it with
the seal of ‘CMO DELHI DHAS’. The MLC bearing no. 2350/21
is Ex.PW5/B. IO also seized the blood sample, handed over by
PW5 vide seizure memo, Ex.PW2/B.
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 6 of 40
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.07.11
15:24:49 +0530
14. PW6 Dr. Himanshu Agrawal deposed that on
17.08.2021, he was posted as SR at RML Hospital in Department
of General Surgery. As per record regarding patient Manish (CR
No. 30621), the nature of injuries were simple in nature. He gave
his opinion after examining the record regarding the patient
Manish. His opinion regarding nature of injuries from Point A to
A1 is mentioned on discharge summary, Ex.PW6/A.
15. PW7 HC Sandeep deposed that on 27.06.2021, he was
posted as Constable at PS Nand Nagri. On that day, he along with
Ct. Satya Narayan and IO ASI Mahender reached at Jhuggi of
E-57, Sunder Nagari, Delhi. At that time, complainant Mithlesh
was also with them. They reached near Kabristan, where they
saw accused Shakir and complainant Mithlesh pointed out
towards him and stated that he had beaten her son. They
apprehended accused Shakir, who had taken them near Hasan
Masjid, Sunder Nagari, Delhi. They found accused Mohsin near
the said Masjid and he was also apprehended. Accused Shakir
and Mohsin were interrogated. Accused Shakir got recovered one
knife and cloth i.e. a jeans (saleti colour), white colour t-shirt
with some black strip.
16. PW7 further deposed that accused Mohsin got
recovered his cloth i.e. jeans (blue colour) and multi colour shirt.
Recovered articles were separately sealed with the seal of MS. IO
prepared the documents i.e. arrest memo, personal search memo,
disclosure statement and seizure memo of both the accused
persons. Personal search memo of accused Shakir and Mohsin
are Ex. PW7/A and Ex. PW7/B. PW7 seized the cloth of accused
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 7 of 40
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.07.11
15:24:55 +0530
Shakir and Mohsin vide seizure memos, Ex. PW7/D and Ex.
PW7/C respectively. PW7 seized the knife, Ex.P2 recovered from
accused Shakir vide seizure memo, Ex. PW7/E, which was used
by accused Shakir and said cloths were worn by accused Shakir
at the time of incident, which were recovered from his house at
E-57/B-355, Jhuggi, Sunder Nagri, Delhi and PW7 prepared the
sketch of knife Ex. PW7/F. Accused Mohsin got recovered cloths
worn by him at the time of incident from his house E-57/A-6,
Jhuggi Sunder Nagri, Delhi. PW7 recorded disclosure statements
of accused Shakir and Mohsin, Ex. PW7/G and Ex. PW7/H.
PW7 correctly identified one blue colour jeans pant and one
printed shirt belonging to accused Mohsin, Ex.PW9/A1 (colly)
and one grey colour jeans pant and one printed vest belonging to
accused Shakir, Ex.PW9/A2 (colly) and knife, Ex.P2, recovered
from accused Shakir. PW7 correctly identified accused Shakir
and Mohsin in the court.
17. PW8 HC Robin Singh deposed that on 25.06.2021, he
was posted at PS Nand Nagri. On that day, on receipt of DD No.
12A regarding information of admission of an injured/patient
Manish at Dr. Hedgewar Hospital. He along with ASI Mahender
Singh went to Hedgewar Hospital where they met parents of
injured at RML Hospital. Injured Manish was not fit for giving
statement as mentioned in the MLC. IO collected the MLC of
injured Manish. They came to know that injured Manish was
referred to RML Hospital and they went there, where parents of
Manish met them and doctor declared injured Manish unfit for
statement. On 26.06.2021, the statement of mother of injured
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 8 of 40
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.07.11
15:25:00 +0530
Manish namely Mitilesh was recorded by the IO and IO prepared
the rukka and got registered the FIR.
18. PW9 Ct. Satya Narayan deposed that on 27.06.2021,
he was posted as Constable at PS Nand Nagri. On that day, he
along with Ct. Sandeep and ASI Mahender joined the
investigation of the present case. They reached at E Block,
Jhuggi, Sunder Nagri, Nand Nagri, Delhi in search of accused
Shakir and Mohsin, where they met complainant Mithlesh, who
also joined the investigation along with them. One secret
informer also joined the investigation and thereafter they all
reached near Kabristan, Sunder Nagri, Delhi, where they found
accused Shakir, who was identified by the complainant Mithlesh
and he was apprehended. Accused Mohsin was also apprehended
near Hasan Masjid, Sunder Nagari, Delhi on the identification of
the complainant Mithlesh. Thereafter, accused Shakir and
Mohsin were interrogated and arrested vide arrest memos dated
27.06.2021, Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D and their personal search
were also conducted by the IO vide memos dated 27.06.2021,
Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B and their disclosure statements were
recorded vide Ex.PW7/G and Ex.PW7/H respectively.
19. PW9 further deposed that accused Shakir got
recovered one knife from the first floor of his house i.e.
E-57/B-355, Jhuggi, Sunder Nagri, which was used by him
during the commission of offence and the same was sealed with
the seal of MS after wrapping the same in a white colour cloth.
IO seized the same vide seizure memo dated 27.06.2021
Ex.PW7/E. IO also prepared the sketch of the abovesaid knife,
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 9 of 40
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.07.11
15:25:06 +0530
Ex.PW7/F before its seizure. Accused Shakir also got recovered
one jeans pant (saleti colour), one baniyan (white colour) on
which words ‘CHAL PUBG KHELTE HAI’ were written, which
were correctly identified by PW9 as Ex.PW9/A2 and the same
were sealed after preparing a pullanda of cloth with the seal of
MS and the pullanda was seized vide seizure memo, Ex.PW7/D.
Accused Mohsin also got recovered one shirt (pink and red
colour check/printed) from his house i.e. E-57/A-6, Jhuggi
Sunder Nagri, Delhi, which were correctly identified by PW9 as
Ex.PW9/A1 and the same were sealed after preparing a pullanda
of cloth with the seal of MS and the pullanda was seized vide
seizure memo Ex.PW7/C. Accused Shakir and Mohsin were sent
to the lock up after medical examination and case property was
deposited in the Malkhana. PW9 identified knife, Ex.P2, which
was recovered from accused Shakir. PW9 correctly identified
accused Shakir and Mohsin.
20. PW10 Ms. Shashi Bala Pahuja, SSO deposed that she
was working in Biology Division of FSL Delhi since 1994. On
20.01.2022, she was posted as abovesaid. On that day, three
sealed parcels were received in the office of FSL, Rohini in
relation to the present case and the same was assigned to her for
examination. The above said sealed parcels were intact as per the
forwarding letter. PW10 opened the parcels and examined the
exhibits and prepared her detailed report, dt. 04.05.2023,
Ex.PW10/A. She also prepared the allelic data, which was
annexed with the report, Ex.PW10/B. After examination, she
came to the conclusion that DNA fingerprint performed on the
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 10 of 40
KUMAR Digitally signed by
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT 15:25:11 +0530
Date: 2026.07.11
source of Exhibits 1 (knife), 2 (pants) and 3 (Gauze cloth piece of
victim) provided are sufficient to conclude that biological stains
i.e. blood stains on the source of exhibits 1 (knife), 2 (pants) and
3 (Gauze cloth piece of victim) are from the same sources and
the same is mentioned on above said report from point C to C1.
21. PW10 further deposed that on 03.10.2023, two sealed
parcels were received in the office of FSL, Rohini in relation to
the present case and the same was assigned to her for
examination. The above said sealed parcels were intact as per the
forwarding letter. PW10 opened the parcels and examined the
exhibits and prepared her detailed report, dt. 16.05.2024,
Ex.PW10/C and allelic data, Ex.PW10/D. After examination, she
came to the conclusion that DNA fingerprint performed on the
source of Exhibits 1b (pant of accused Shakir) provided is
sufficient to conclude that biological stains i.e. blood stains on
the source of exhibits 1b (pant of accused Shakir) are from the
different source and the same is mentioned on above said report
from point C to C1.
22. PW11 SI Mahender Singh deposed that on
24.06.2021, he was posted as ASI at PS Nand Nagri. On that day,
he was on night emergency duty and on receipt of DD No. 12A,
dt. 25.06.2021, Ex. PW11/A, he along with Ct. Robin Singh,
reached Dr. Hedgewar Hospital, Delhi where they came to know
that one injured Manish, S/o Dharampal was already referred to
RML Hospital. PW11 collected the MLC bearing no. 1698/21 of
injured Manish from Hedgewar Hospital. Thereafter, they went
to RML Hospital, where injured Manish was found under
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 11 of 40
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.07.11
15:25:18 +0530
treatment and he was declared unfit for statement by the
concerned doctor. The above said DD entry was kept pending.
On the next day, i.e. 26.06.2021, he went to the RML Hospital
where the injured Manish was still unfit for the statement. In the
RML Hospital, Mithlesh (mother of Manish) met him and he
recorded her statement Ex. PW1/A bearing his attestation at point
B. PW11 prepared the rukka, Ex. PW11/B and got registered the
present FIR at PS Nand Nagri. PW11 went to the spot i.e. E-57,
Jhuggi, Near Hasan Masjid, Sunder Nagri, Delhi, where he
searched the CCTV footage. One CCTV camera was found
installed on the grocery shop of one person namely Dilip and on
checking the CCTV footage, the names of two persons, who had
caused injuries to the victim, came to be known as accused
Mohsin and Shakir, who were residents of Sunder Nagri, Delhi.
23. PW11 further deposed that thereafter, on 27.06.2021,
he along with Ct. Satyanarayan and Ct. Sandeep went to Sunder
Nagri, Delhi in search of accused Shakir and Mohsin. They met
complainant Mithlesh, who joined the investigation along with
them and revealed that her son Manish disclosed about accused
Shakir and Mohsin being his friends. One secret informer came
there and joined the proceedings. Thereafter, they all reached
near Kabristan, Sunder Nagri, Delhi where on the identification
of complainant Mithlesh, accused Shakir was apprehended and
arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/C and his personal search
was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW7/A. After interrogation,
disclosure statement of accused Shakir, Ex. PW7/G was also
recorded. Accused Shakir disclosed that he could get recover theState Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 12 of 40
KUMAR Digitally signed
by KUMAR RAJATRAJAT Date: 2026.07.11
15:25:22 +0530
weapon of offence i.e. knife used by him to cause injuries to
injured Manish and also his clothes, which he was wearing at the
time of incident from his house i.e. E-57/B-355, Jhuggi, Sunder
Nagri, Delhi.
24. PW11 further deposed that accused Shakir took them
to house of his khala, where he was residing i.e. E-57/B355,
Jhuggi, Sunder Nagri, Delhi and got recovered his wearing
clothes at the time of incident i.e. one jeans pant (saleti colour)
and one vest (white colour) with black strip from the room of
above said house, Ex.PW9/A2 and the same was seized by PW11
vide seizure memo, Ex.PW7/D bearing his signature at point D
and signature of Ct. Satya Narayan at point E after sealing the
same with the seal of MS and PW11 correctly identified them.
Accused Shakir also got recovered the knife used by him for
causing injuries to injured Manish from the 1st floor of his above
said house and the same was seized by him vide seizure memo,
Ex.PW7/E after sealing the same with the seal of MS.
25. PW11 further deposed that they all reached near
Hasan Masjid, Sunder Nagri, Delhi and on the identification of
complainant Mithlesh, accused Mohsin was arrested vide arrest
memo Ex. PW1/D, his personal search was conducted vide
memo Ex. PW7/B and his disclosure statement, Ex. PW7/H was
also recorded. Accused Mohsin disclosed that he could get
recover his clothes, which he was wearing at the time of incident
from his house i.e. E-57/A-6, Jhuggi, Sunder Nagri, Delhi and he
took him to his house i.e. E-57/A6, Jhuggi Sunder Nagri, Delhi
and got recovered his wearing clothes i.e. saleti colour shirt and
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 13 of 40
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.07.11
15:25:28 +0530
blue colour jeans from the room of his house (having blood stains
on it), Ex.PW9/A1 and the same were seized by him vide seizure
memo, Ex.PW7/C bearing his signature at point C after sealing
the same with the seal of MS and PW11 correctly identified
them.
26. PW11 further deposed that they returned to the PS and
deposited the case property in the malkhana. On 13.08.2021, he
deposited the MLC in the hospital. On 17.08.2021, he collected
the final opinion regarding nature of injuries from RML Hospital,
which was opined as simple in nature. On 08.09.2021, injured
Manish came at the PS along with his parents and he recorded his
statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. Complainant Mithlesh also produced
one blood stained pant of injured Manish to him, which was
worn by her son at the time of incident. PW11 seized the same
vide seizure memo, Ex.PW1/B bearing his signature at point D
and signature of Manish at point B. On 12.09.2021, blood sample
of injured Manish was taken by Dr. Ravi Shekhar at Dr.
Hedgewar Hospital and the same was seized by PW11 vide
seizure memo, Ex.PW2/B bearing his signature at point D,
signature of complainant Mithlesh at point B and injured Manish
at point A. PW11 correctly identified identified knife, Ex.P2,
which was recovered from accused Shakir and seized vide
seizure memo, Ex.PW7/E and one bloodstained pant (gray/saleti
colour), Ex.P1, worn by deceased Manish at the time of incident
and also correctly identified the clothes of Mohsin and Shakir,
worn by them at the time of incident, Ex.PW9/A1 and Ex.PW9/2.
PW11 correctly identified accused Shakir and Mohsin.
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 14 of 40
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.07.11
15:25:37 +0530
27. PW12 HC Sandeep deposed that he was working as
MHC(M) since 2024 in PS Nand Nagri and he had brought the
original register No. 19 regarding RC No.19/21/22 dated
20.01.2022. Copy of the same is Ex.PW12/A (OSR). He had also
brought acknowledgment receipt bearing No. 191 dated
20.01.2022 of FSL Rohini, Delhi, regarding deposition of
exhibits mentioned in aforesaid RC. Copy of the same is
Ex.PW12/B (OSR). He had also brought the register No.19,
regarding entry no. 5381, 5098, 5386, FIR No.379/21, dated
26.06.2021 qua deposition of case property of the present case by
IO with MHC(M) dated 08.09.2021 and sending of sealed
exhibits to FSL vide abovesaid RC and the same is Ex.PW12/C
(running into four pages) (OSR).
STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS u/s 313 Cr.P.C./351 BNSS
28. Statements of the accused Shakir and Mohsin were
recorded u/s 351 BNSS (u/s 313 Cr.PC) on 17.03.2026 and they
denied the incriminating evidence put to them and stated that all
witnesses are interested witnesses and they were falsely
implicated by the police officials in the present case. They are
innocent and they were not apprehended/arrested at time/place
mentioned in the record. Police obtained their signatures on
blank papers, which were converted by them into disclosure
statement/arrest memo/personal search memo.
Accused Shakir stated that he was picked up from his
house. No recovery of knife was made from him and it was
planted by the police upon him.
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 15 of 40
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
RAJAT
RAJAT 2026.07.11
15:25:42
+0530
Accused Mohsin stated that he was telephonically
called by the police persons at PS and falsely implicated by the
police.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE,
ANALYSIS OF WITNESSES AND FINDINGARGUMENTS OF LD. CHIEF LADC FOR ACCUSED PERSONS
29. Ld. Chief LADC for accused Shakir and Mohsin
argued that they have been falsely implicated in the present case
by the police. He filed the written arguments on behalf of both
the accused persons and argued that the site plan does not
indicate the date when it was made and the main witness i.e.
injured Manish was not completely examined and as such his
testimony cannot be read in evidence and the evidence of the
parents i.e. complainant Mithlesh and PW4 Dharmpal are
hearsay in nature and as such inadmissible. Blood sample of the
victim was taken on 12.09.2021, but it is not stated as to whom
seal was handed over after the same and the seizure memo of
knife does not indicate time and there is no independent witness
of the same, which shows that it was planted upon him. Arrest of
accused Shakir and Mohsin is doubtful. The nature of injuries
found on the victim were simple in nature. PW1 Mithlesh in her
cross-examination stated that her son Manish disclosed the name
of accused persons in the presence of her husband, but later
stated that she did not remember, if her husband was present and
as per PW1, Manish was conscious and talking at that time and
her statement was recorded on 26.06.2021 after deliberations.
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 16 of 40
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.07.11
15:25:46
+0530
30. PW4 Dharmpal stated in his testimony that Manish
came at 4 AM and he saw him in pool of blood and told him to
take him to hospital as he was beaten by his friends, but he did
not state the name of accused persons. PW5 deposed that blood
sample of patient was preserved on 12.09.2021 i.e. after 2.5
months of incident. There are contradictions in the testimony of
PW7 Ct. Sandeep, who had made various improvements and
contradictions qua arrest of accused and the recovery of knife
and no public person was made a witness to the same and his
testimony creates doubt on the ceiling of knife, which makes
recovery doubtful. IO failed to depose exact place of recovery of
knife. When the accused persons were known to injured, then
there was no need to mention that they were stabbed by unknown
persons. There is delay in the complaint by one day. DNA report
is not sufficient to convict the accused persons and it is not
conclusive. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt against the accused persons and they be
acquitted.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. ADDL. PP FOR THE STATE
31. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that accused
persons had committed the crime with their common intention
and they had inflicted knife injuries to the victim and
complainant and other PWs have correctly identified them and
PW1 has correctly stated the date, time and manner of offence,
which is corroborated by PW4 and the DNA report also
corroborated the version of PW1 and PW4, who were named by
the witnesses as assailant. As per MLC, there were injuries on the
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 17 of 40
KUMAR Digitally signed
by KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT 15:25:51
Date: 2026.07.11
+0530
body of injured Manish though they were simple in nature and he
was unfit for statement after the brutal assault. Injured Manish
was examined and he has supported the case of prosecution and
identified the accused persons as assailants, but he expired and
his testimony could not be completed, but his version is
corroborative in nature. Complainant proved her complaint. IO
and other police witnesses have proved the weapon of offence i.e.
knife, recovered at the instance of accused Shakir and both
accused had stabbed Manish and the motive of crime was that
accused persons had told injured to bring cigarette and they were
intoxicated condition and when he refused, then they abused and
established. Witnesses have also identified the cloths of Manish
and cloths of accused persons, recovered at their instance. Thus,
prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against
the accused.
32. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the
records.
33. The charge against the accused is u/s 307/34 IPC
Section 307 IPC Attempt to murder.-
Whoever does any act with such intention or
knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he
by that act caused death, he would be guilty of
murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is
caused to any person by such act, the offender shall
be liable either to [imprisonment for life] or to such
punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 18 of 40
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
RAJAT
RAJAT 2026.07.11
15:25:56
+0530
Section 34. Acts done by several persons in
furtherance of common intention.-
“When a criminal act is done by several persons in
furtherance of the common intention of all, each of
such persons is liable for that act in the same manner
as if it were done by him alone.”
34. The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses to prove
its case and out of them, the star witnesses were PW1/Mithlesh
and PW4 Dharmpal.
PUBLIC WITNESSES/INJURED
35. The present case was registered on the statement of
complainant Mithlesh, who was mother of Manish and during her
testimony, she proved her complaint, Ex.PW1/A and deposed that
on 24.06.2021 at about 10 AM, her son Manish had gone to meet
his friends Shakir and Mohsin and when he came at 4 AM, he
shouted to save him and he was in pool of blood, having stab
wounds over his neck and stomach and he was bleeding from his
neck and her husband Dharmpal had taken to Hedgewar Hospital
from where, he was referred to RML and injured told that he was
stabbed by Shakir and Mohsin and they also snatched his mobile
phone and they were asking him to bring cigarette, which he
refused and stabbed him. PW1 had deposed that accused persons
were known to her prior to offence, being resident of same street
and she had seen CCTV footage, in which both accused persons
were seen taking away injured Manish in the street and after
sometime, injured was in pool of blood and followed by accused
Shakir and Mohsin.
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 19 of 40
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.07.11
15:26:02 +0530
36. The prosecution has not shown the CCTV footage to
PW1 in which accused persons are seen. PW1 correctly
identified the pant of injured Manish, Ex.P1. PW1 in her cross-
examination stated that her son Manish disclosed the name of
accused persons in the presence of her husband and again said,
she did not remember, if her husband was present or not and
again stated that her husband was present at that time. Evidence
of PW1 is hearsay in nature as she had not witnessed the incident
and she had deposed what she heard from her son Manish. PW1
has not stated as to at what time Manish was stabbed and at
which place.
37. PW2 Manish deposed that accused persons were
known to him and on 24.06.2021, at about 11-12 PM, he went to
purchase cigarette and accused persons were present there, who
took him to Kabristan, Sunder Nagri and asked him to bring
cigarette and they were in intoxicated condition and snatched his
mobile, abused him and both had stabbed him due to which he
became unconscious and when he regained consciousness at 4
AM, he went to his house and he correctly identified both the
accused persons, but since he expired during trial and his
examination in chief was not completed, said evidence will not
be read in evidence against the accused persons as they did not
have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
38. PW4 Dharmpal is the father of injured Manish, who
deposed that on 24.06.2021 at 9.30 PM, Manish left the house
and came at 4 AM next morning and when he opened the door,
he saw him in pool of blood. PW1 also stated that she opened the
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 20 of 40
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.07.11
15:26:08 +0530
door and it is not clarified as to whether PW1 or PW4 opened the
door and PW1 was not sure, if PW4 was present at the door when
her son knocked it at 4 AM. PW4 also named accused Shakir and
Mohsin as the persons, who stabbed Manish, which was told to
him by Manish. PW4 also identified pant of Manish, Ex.P1. The
said evidence of PW4 is also hearsay in nature as he is not an eye
witness and statement was made by his son after 4-6 hours when
he was stabbed and after he left his house.
39. Said versions of PW1 and PW4 could not be
corroborated by PW2 Manish, whose testimony cannot be read in
evidence for the aforesaid reason and the hearsay versions of
PW1 and PW4 are inadmissible in view of the settled law. In
Kalyan Kumar Gogoi Vs. Ashutosh Agnihotri & Anr. AIR (2011)
SC 760, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:
21. Here comes the rule of appreciation of hearsay
evidence. Hearsay evidence is excluded on the
ground that it is always desirable, in the interest of
justice, to get the person, whose statement is relied
upon, into court for his examination in the regular
way, in order that many possible sources of
inaccuracy and untrustworthiness can be brought to
light and exposed, if they exist, by the test of cross-
examination. The phrase “hearsay evidence” is not
used in the Evidence Act because it is inaccurate and
vague. It is a fundamental rule of evidence under the
Indian Law that hearsay evidence is inadmissible. A
statement, oral or written, made otherwise than a
witness in giving evidence and a statement contained
or recorded in any book, document or record
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 21 of 40
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
RAJAT
RAJAT 2026.07.11
15:26:13
+0530
whatever, proof of which is not admitted on other
grounds, are deemed to be irrelevant for the purpose
of proving the truth of the matter stated. An assertion
other than one made by a person while giving oral
evidence in the proceedings is inadmissible as
evidence of any fact asserted. That this species of
evidence cannot be tested by cross-examination and
that, in many cases, it supposes some better testimony
which ought to be offered in a particular case, are not
the sole grounds for its exclusion. Its tendency to
protract legal investigations to an embarrassing and
dangerous length, its intrinsic weakness, its
incompetency to satisfy the mind of a Judge about the
existence of a fact, and the fraud which may be
practiced with impunity, under its cover, combine to
support the rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible.
22. The reasons why hearsay evidence is not received
as relevant evidence are: (a) the person giving such
evidence does not feel any responsibility. The law
requires all evidence to be given under personal
responsibility, i.e., every witness must give his
testimony, under such circumstance, as expose him to
all the penalties of falsehood. If the person giving
hearsay evidence is cornered, he has a line of escape
by saying “I do not know, but so and so told me”, (b)
truth is diluted and diminished with each repetition
and (c) if permitted, gives ample scope for playing
fraud by saying “someone told me that………..”. It
would be attaching importance to false rumour flying
from one foul lip to another. Thus statement of
witnesses based on information received from othersState Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 22 of 40
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.07.11
15:26:19 +0530
is inadmissible”.
PW1 and PW4 have not explained as to why they did
not try to search Manish when he did not return in the night and
have deposed that there was no previous enmity between accused
persons and Manish.
MEDICAL/FORENSIC EVIDENCE
40. PW5 Dr. Ravi Shekhar proved the MLC of injured
Manish, Ex.PW5/A vide which he examined Manish and found
that there were 3 incised wounds of size 10×5 cm, 4×2 cm and
2×1 cm with no active bleeding and he preserved his blood
sample and handed over to IO in sealed condition vide separate
MLC, Ex.PW5/B.
41. PW6 Dr. Himanshu Aggarwal proved his opinion that
nature of injuries were simple in nature, Ex.PW6/A. In his cross-
examination, he stated that he had opined on the basis of medical
documents of patient and did not examine him.
The medical evidence proves that there were 3 incised
wounds caused to injured Manish and nature of injuries were
simple in nature and thus, it could not be proved conclusively
that they were life threatening or sufficient to cause death of
injured Manish.
42. PW10 Ms. Shashi Bala Pahuja, SSO Bio, FSL Rohini
proved her report, Ex.PW10/A and allelic data, Ex.PW10/B in
which she concluded that DNA fingerprint performed on Exhibits
1 (knife), 2 (pants) and 3 (gauze piece of victim) were from the
same source. She also proved her detailed report, Ex.PW10/C
along with allelic data, Ex.PW10/D vide which she concluded
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 23 of 40
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.07.11
15:26:24
+0530
that DNA fingerprint performed on the source of Exhibit 1b (pant
of Shakir) was sufficient to conclude that bloodstains on the
source of Exhibit 1b are from the different source.
43. As per Ex.PW10/C, no blood was detected on the
exhibits of accused Mohsin, but blood was detected on the pant
of Shakir (Ex.1b), but the said report does not point towards the
guilt of accused. Ex.PW10/A proved that the bloodstains on
knife, pants of victim and the gauze piece (blood sample) of
victim are from the same source. This report proves that victim
was stabbed with the recovered knife, but the said FSL report is
corroborative in nature and the same has to be correlated with the
other incriminating evidence proved by the witnesses.
POLICE WITNESSES
44. PW3 HC Sudhir proved the FIR, Ex.PW3/B along
with relevant certificate u/s 65 IEA, Ex.PW3/C and his
endorsement on rukka, Ex.PW3/A.
45. PW7 HC Sandeep, PW9 Satyanarayan and PW11 IO
Mahender deposed that on 27.06.2021, they all and complainant
reached E-57, Jhuggi, Sunder Nagri, Delhi and on pointing out of
complainant, apprehended accused Shakir, who had taken them
to Hasan Masjid, Sunder Nagri, Delhi where accused Mohsin
was apprehended and accused Shakir got recovered one knife and
jeans and while colour t-shirt with black strip and Mohsin got
recovered his blue jeans and multi colour shirt.
46. PW7, PW9 and PW11 have not deposed as to from
which specific place accused Shakir got recovered the knife as
they have deposed that he got it recovered from first floor of hisState Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 24 of 40
KUMAR Digitally signed
by KUMAR RAJATRAJAT Date: 2026.07.11
15:26:30 +0530
said house and PW11 in his cross-examination admitted that he
could not say the exact place where knife was kept and he had
not mentioned time of recovery on the seizure memo. PW7, PW9
and PW11 proved the sketch of knife, Ex.PW7/F and its seizure,
Ex.PW7/E. As per seizure memo, knife was shown recovered
from first floor of his house under the cloths, but PW7, PW9 and
PW11 have not stated the date on which it was recovered though
they identified the knife, Ex.P2 and his cloths Ex.PW9/A2. PW7,
PW9 and PW11 also proved the recovery of cloths from accused
Mohsin, Ex.PW9/A1. PW7, PW9 and PW11 proved the
recording of disclosure of accused Shakir and Mohsin,
Ex.PW7/G and Ex.PW7/H, but they have not deposed that said
recovery of cloths at the instance of accused person and knife
from accused Shakir was done after the recording of his
disclosure and this fact was not known to police prior to the
disclosure of accused persons.
47. PW7 in his cross-examination stated that he along
with Ct. Satya Narayan and IO went to E-57, Sunder Nagri,
Delhi and he was confronted with his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C,
Ex.PW7/DX where it is mentioned that he along with other Ct.
Sandeep went there.
48. PW7 and PW9 in their cross-examination also stated
that they had stated to the IO in their statement that when they
reached Kabristan, Mithlesh pointed towards accused Shakir as
the person, who had beaten her son and PW7 was confronted
with Ex.PW7/DX where it was not recorded. PW7 and PW9 also
stated that they did not know, if IO made any public witnessState Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 25 of 40
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.07.11
15:26:37 +0530
during recovery of knife and as per recovery memo, Ex.PW7/E
of knife, there is no public witness to the said recovery of knife
or its sketch though admittedly several public persons had
gathered at the time of recovery of knife and also there is no
videography or photography of recovery and even said Mithlesh
was not made a witness to recovery of knife in whose presence, it
was recovered, which makes recovery of knife doubtful.
49. No independent public person was made a witness
during recovery proceedings of said knife. Even if the recovery is
said to be proved as per law, then also it is settled law that mere
recovery of articles i.e. weapon or incriminating article, is not
sufficient to prove the case against the accused persons
particularly if identity of assailants is not established.
50. In Radhey Shyam & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Criminal Appeal No. 2203/2010 decided on 12.04.2023, Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that:
9. We are therefore, of the considered opinion that the
identity of the named accused as assailants of the
deceased has not been established in the Court
beyond a reasonable doubt. Then what remains is the
evidence of the alleged recovery of the weapons of
assault at the instance of the accused. The conviction
cannot be sustained only on the basis of the alleged
recovery.
51. In Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar & Others Vs.
State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. (S). 985 OF 2010 dated
19.04.2024, it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that:
60. Thus, when the Investigating Officer steps into
the witness box for proving such disclosureState Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 26 of 40
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.07.11
15:26:45 +0530
statement, he would be required to narrate what the
accused stated to him. The Investigating Officer
essentially testifies about the conversation held
between himself and the accused which has been
taken down into writing leading to the discovery of
incriminating fact(s).
52. In the case of Mohd. Abdul Hafeez v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, 1983 (1) SCC 143, it was held by this Court as follows:-
“5. ….If evidence otherwise confessional in character
is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence
Act, it is obligatory upon the Investigating Officer to
state and record who gave the information; when he
is dealing with more than one accused, what words
were used by him so that a recovery pursuant to the
information received may be connected to the person
giving the information so as to provide incriminating
evidence against that person.”
Further, in the case of Subramanya v. State of
Karnataka 2022 SCC Online SC 1400, it was held as under: –
84. If, it is say of the investigating officer that the
accused appellant while in custody on his own free
will and volition made a statement that he would lead
to the place where he had hidden the weapon of
offence, the site of burial of the dead body, clothes
etc., then the first thing that the investigating officer
should have done was to call for two independent
witnesses at the police station itself. Once the two
independent witnesses would arrive at the police
station thereafter in their presence the accused should
be asked to make an appropriate statement as he may
desire in regard to pointing out the place where he isState Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 27 of 40
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.07.11
15:26:50 +0530
said to have hidden the weapon of offence etc. When
the accused while in custody makes such statement
before the two independent witnesses (panch-
witnesses) the exact statement or rather the exact
words uttered by the accused should be incorporated
in the first part of the panchnama that the
investigating officer may draw in accordance with
law. This first part of the panchnama for the purpose
of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is always drawn at
the police station in the presence of the independent
witnesses so as to lend credence that a particular
statement was made by the accused expressing his
willingness on his own free will and volition to point
out the place where the weapon of offence or any
other article used in the commission of the offence
had been hidden. Once the first part of the panchnama
is completed thereafter the police party along with the
accused and the two independent witnesses (panch-
witnesses) would proceed to the particular place as
may be led by the accused. If from that particular
place anything like the weapon of offence or blood
stained clothes or any other article is discovered then
that part of the entire process would form the second
part of the panchnama. This is how the law expects
the investigating officer to draw the discovery
panchnama as contemplated under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act. If we read the entire oral evidence of
the investigating officer then it is clear that the same
is deficient in all the aforesaid relevant aspects of the
matter.”
53. Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of
Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 SCC
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 28 of 40Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.07.11
15:26:56 +0530
Online SC 1396, wherein this Court held that:
“Mere exhibiting of memorandum prepared by the
Investigating Officer during investigation cannot
tantamount to proof of its contents. While testifying
on oath, the Investigating Officer would be required
to narrate the sequence of events which transpired
leading to the recording of the disclosure statement”.
69. Thus, we are of the firm opinion that neither the
disclosure memos were proved in accordance with
law nor the recovery of the weapons from open
spaces inspire confidence and were wrongly relied
upon by the High Court as incriminating material so
as to reverse the finding of the acquittal recorded by
the trial Court.
54. PW7 and PW9 also admitted that there is no time of
recovery of knife mentioned in the seizure memo, Ex.PW7/E and
even they did not know the exact time of recovery.
Even there was no independent witness to the
recovery of clothes of accused Shakir and Mohsin and the CCTV
footage in which they were seen was not produced to corroborate
the fact that they were wearing those clothes at the time of
incident.
55. PW8 HC Robin Singh deposed that injured Manish
was unfit for statement in RML Hospital. PW9 Ct. Satyanarayan
also deposed that he along with IO and complainant Mithlesh
went to Kabristand, Sunder Nagri, Delhi and on the identification
of complainant, accused Shakir was admitted and later, accused
Mohsin was also admitted and they were arrested vide memo,
Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D and their personal search was
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 29 of 40
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.07.11
15:27:02 +0530
conducted vide memos, Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B, but nothing
was recovered from them.
56. PW11 proved DD No. 12A, Ex.PW11/A, but it was
regarding an information that injured Manish was admitted in
Hedgewar Hospital by his father in injured condition and no
accused was named therein. PW11 proved that Manish was unfit
for statement and he recorded the statement of his mother PW1
Mithlesh, Ex.PW1/A and prepared rukka, Ex.PW11/B, but the
testimony of PW1 is hearsay in nature as discussed in the
preceding paras.
57. PW11 also corroborated the version of PW1 that on
search, one CCTV footage was found installed in the grocery
shop of one Dilip and on checking the same, names of accused
Shakir and Mohsin were known as the persons, who caused
injury to Manish. Further, PW11/IO in his cross-examination
admitted that he had not cited Dilip as a witness after watching
the CCTV footage and said Dilip disclosed him from the CCTV
footage that accused persons and injured were friends and
generally seen together.
58. The prosecution has not shown the CCTV footage to
either PW1 or IO and same was withheld by the prosecution and
it was the clinching piece of evidence and IO has not deposed
that he had seized the said CCTV footage or sent it to FSL for
opinion and for that an adverse inference has to be drawn against
the prosecution as per Section 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence
Act.
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 30 of 40
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.07.11
15:27:07 +0530
Section 114 (g) Indian Evidence Act: Court may
presume existence of certain facts:
That evidence which could be and is not produced would, if
produced, be unfavourable to the person who withhold it.
59. In the landmark judgment of 3 Judges Bench in
Tomaso Bruno Vs. State of UP, 2015 (7) SCC 178 , Hon’ble
Supreme Court set aside the concurrent judgment of conviction
passed by Ld. Trial Court and Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and
acquitted the accused persons on the ground that police failed to
produce critical CCTV footage from the hotel and ignored the
mobile SIM details, which amounted to withholding the ” best
evidence”.
60. In the present case also, the CCTV footage was not
proved or brought on record and accused persons claimed that
they had not caused any injury to the injured Manish and it might
have been caused by some other persons, who could have been
identified from the CCTV footage.
61. PW11 IO in his cross-examination admitted that
firstly accused Mohsin was apprehended at 6 AM near Hasan
Masjid, Sunder Nagri, Delhi and then, accused Shakir was
apprehended near Kabristan, Sunder Nagri, Delhi at about 7-7.30
AM, in the presence of Mohsin.
62. PW1 in her examination in chief has not stated that
who was arrested first, but PW7 and PW9 deposed that accused
Shakir was apprehended first and he took them to Hasan Masjid,
Sunder Nagri, Delhi where accused Mohsin was apprehended
and PW9 was the witness of arrest memos of accused Shakir and
Mohsin, Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D and the testimonies of PW7
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 31 of 40
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.07.11
15:27:12 +0530
and PW9 are contrary to the testimony of PW11 qua arrest of
accused persons and timing of arrest Shakir and Mohsin are 7.30
AM and 9 AM, which makes their arrest doubtful.
63. PW11 also admitted in his cross-examination that
prior to apprehension of Mohsin, recovery of knife from accused
Shakir was already effected, but as per IO when Mohsin was
apprehended at 6 AM and Shakir at 7.30 AM, how knife was
already recovered from Shakir prior to apprehension of accused
Mohsin. PW11 admitted that 4-5 public persons were gathered at
the time of recovery of knife, but he has not made any such
public person a witness nor served any notice, which further
makes recovery doubtful.
64. PW11 in his cross-examination again changed his
version and stated that accused Shakir was arrested first and
knife was recovered and then, Mohsin was arrested and in re-
examination by Ld. APP, he admitted that he could not
understand the question and recovery of knife was effective from
Shakir first prior to arrest of Mohsin, but it will not help
prosecution as IO had to speak truth what he had investigated and
he cannot claim that he could not understand the question and
cover up later on. PW11 had not seized their mobile phone nor
collected their CDRs or location chart, which further makes the
presence of accused persons doubtful at the spot on the alleged
date of incident and such shaky evidence of IO, further makes the
prosecution case doubtful and the knife was seized on 27.06.2021
vide seizure memo, Ex.PW7/A and IO admitted in his cross that
knife, cloths of victim and sample seal were sent to FSL, Rohini
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 32 of 40
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.07.11
15:27:17 +0530
on 20.01.2022 i.e. after 6 months of recovery and no explanation
has been given by the IO or prosecution for not sending the knife
to FSL immediately after seizure.
65. There is a Standing Order bearing No. 444/2016 of
Commissioner of Police and the same has been affirmed by
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Crl. M.C. No. 2621/2012 in case
titled as ‘Kanwar Sain Gupta Vs. NCT of Delhi & Anr.‘ decided
on 21.07.2016 and as per its instructions no. 3, the Investigating
Officers/SHO concerned shall deposit all the relevant
exhibits/documents for examination with the Forensic Science
Laboratory (FSL) as early as possible, within 07 days from the
date of its collection. Further, in case of biological samples such
as blood, semen, etc. which putrefy/degenerate at a rapid rate,
should be sent on the same day/next day of collection.
The IO has not followed the above Standing Order.
66. In Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad Vs. State
of Maharashtra 2023 INSC 561, it was also held that:
’61. The delay in sending the samples is
unexplained and therefore, the possibility of
contamination and the concomitant prospect of
diminishment in value can not be reasonably
ruled out. On the need for expedition in ensuring
that samples when collected are sent to the
concerned laboratory as soon as possible, we
may refer to ‘Guidelines for collection, storage
and transportation of Crime Scene DNA samples
For Investigating Officers – CFSL, Directorate
of Forensic Sciences Services Ministry of Home
Affairs, Govt. of India’ which in particularState Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 33 of 40
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.07.11
15:27:23
+0530
reference to blood and semen, irrespective of its
form, i.e., liquid or dry (crust/stain or spatter)
records the sample so taken ‘Must be submitted
in the laboratory without any delay.
62. The document also lays emphasis on the
‘chain of custody’ being maintained. Chain of
custody implies that right from the time of taking
of the sample, to the time its role in the
investigation and processes subsequent, is
complete, each person handling said piece of
evidence must duly be acknowledged in the
documentation, so as to ensure that the integrity
is uncompromised. It is recommended that a
document be duly maintained cataloging the
custody….’
63. Indisputably, these ‘without any delay’ and
‘chain in custody’ aspects which are
indispensable to the vitality of such evidence,
were not complied with. In such a situation, this
Court can not hold the DNA Report Ex. 85 to be
so dependable as to send someone to the gallows
on this basis.
67. In ‘Pattu Rajan Vs. State of T.N.’ (2019) 4 SCC 771, it
was held as under:
“52. Like all other opinion evidence, the
probative value accorded to DNA evidence also
varies from case to case, depending on the facts
and circumstances and the weight accorded to
other evidence on record, whether contrary or
corroborative. This is all the more important to
remember given that even though the accuracyState Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 34 of 40
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.07.11
15:27:28 +0530
of DNA evidence may be increasing with the
advancement of science and technology with
every passing day, thereby making it more and
more reliable, we have not yet reached a
juncture where it may be said to be infallible.”
68. A three Judge Bench in ‘Manoj Vs. State of MP’
(2023) 2 SCC 353 observed:
“158. This Court, therefore, has relied on DNA
reports, in the past, where the guilt of an accused
was sought to be established. Notably, the
reliance was to corroborate. This Court
highlighted the need to ensure quality in the
testing and eliminate the possibility of
contamination of evidence; it also held that being
an opinion, the probative value of such evidence
has to vary from case to case.”
Thus, in the light of above, the fact that knife, clothes
of victim and sample seal were sent to FSL after 6 months, affect
the credibility of FSL reports, Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/C.
69. PW12 HC Sandeep proved entries of register no. 19
regarding RC No. 19/21/22 dated 20.01.2022, Ex.PW12/A
(OSR), acknowledgment receipt bearing no. 191 dated
20.01.2022 of FSL Rohini, Delhi regarding deposition of exhibits
mentioned in RC, Ex.PW12/B and regarding entry no. 5381,
5098, 5386, FIR no. 379/21 dated 26.06.2021 qua deposition of
case property dated 08.09.2021 and sending of sealed exhibits to
FSL vide abovesaid RC, Ex.PW12/C.
There is no investigation done by the IO qua missing
mobile of victim Manish.
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 35 of 40
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.07.11
15:27:33 +0530
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS
70. Accused Shakir and Mohsin denied the incriminating
evidence put to them in their statements u/s 351 BNSS and
accused Mohsin stated that he was telephonically called by the
police persons at PS and falsely implicated him after obtaining
his signatures on blank papers and recorded his false disclosure.
Accused Shakir stated that he was picked up from his
house. No recovery of knife was made from him and it was
planted by the police upon him.
71. The arrest and the recovery of knife from accused
Shakir is already doubtful as discussed in the preceding paras,
which makes the defence of accused probable and plausible and
the evidence of PW1 and PW4 are hearsay in nature and PW2
injured Manish, who was the eye witness could not be examined
completely and his evidence cannot be read against accused.
72. Even the admitted documents do not prove the
offence against the accused persons. Prosecution failed to prove
that accused Shakir and Mohsin acted in furtherance of their
common intention and stabbed Manish with intention to kill.
73. In Kailash Gour and Ors. Vs. State of Assam reported
in MANU/SC/1505/2011, (2012) 2 SCC 34, Apex Court has
observed that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is a principle that cannot be sacrificed on
the altar or inefficiency, inadequacy or inept handling of the investigation by
the police. The benefit arising from any such faulty investigation ought to
go to the accused and not to the prosecution.
74. In Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka, dt.
13.10.2022, in Crl. Appeal No. 242/2022, Hon’ble Supreme
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 36 of 40
Digitally signed
KUMAR RAJAT
by KUMAR
RAJAT Date: 2026.07.11
15:27:39 +0530
Court of India has held that it is settled principle of law that when two
views are possible from the prosecution evidence, the one which is
favourable to the accused shall have to be taken and the benefit of doubt
shall have to be given to the accused.
75. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again held
that onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon
the prosecution and prosecution must establish the charge beyond
reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal
jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the
accused, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in
acquittal of the accused. Reference may be made to the
Judgments titled as ‘Nallapati Sivaiah Vs. Sub Divisional Officer,
Guntur‘, reported as VIII (2007) SLT 454 (SC) in this respect.
Reference may also be made to the Judgment titled as ‘Raj
Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya Vs. State of Rajasthan‘, reported
as (2013) 5 SCC 722, wherein it was held that the large distance
between ‘may be’ true and ‘must be’ true, must be covered by way
of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the
prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and
the basic and golden rule must be applied and the Court must
ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and
circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt
must be given to the accused.
CONCLUSION
76. In the totality of the circumstances brought on record
by way of evidence, it is observed that the prosecution has failed
to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused
Shakir and Mohsin qua offence punishable u/s 307/34 IPC.
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 37 of 40
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
Date:
RAJAT 2026.07.11
15:27:45
+0530
77. Consequently, the accused Shakir and Mohsin are
acquitted of the offence u/s 307/34 IPC.
The charts as per the judgment of Manojbhai
Jethabhai Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat, (CA No. 2973/2023) of
Hon’ble Supreme Court are annexed herewith.
File be consigned to Record Room after necessary
compliance.
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
ON THIS DAY OF 11th JULY, 2026 2026.07.11
15:27:50
+0530
(KUMAR RAJAT)
ASJ-07, Shahdara, KKD Courts,
Delhi/11.07.2026
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 38 of 40
CHART FOR WITNESSES EXAMINED
Prosecution Name of Witness Description
Witnesses No.
1. PW2 Manish Eye-witnesses
2. NA Witness of last seen
circumstances
3. PW5 and Dr. Ravi Shekhar and Dr. Medical Jurist
PW6 Himanshu Agarwal
4. PW11 ASI Mahender Singh Investigating Officer
5. PW1 Mithlesh Complainant/First
Informant
CHART FOR EXHIBITED DOCUMENTS.
Exhibit Description of the Proved by/Attested by
No. Exhibit
1. Inquest NA
Panchnama/Memo
2. Recovery NA
Panchnama/Memo
3. Arrest Memo of accused PW1, PW9 and PW11
Shakir and Mohsin
Ex.PW1/C & Ex.PW1/D
4. Post-mortem Report NA
5. FSL Report, Ex.PW10/A PW10
and Ex.PW10/C
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 39 of 40
Digitally signed
KUMAR RAJAT
by KUMAR
RAJAT 15:27:59
Date: 2026.07.11
+0530
CHART FOR MATERIAL OBJECTS
Material Description of the Proved by/Attested by
Object No. Exhibit
1. Weapon of offence i.e. PW7, PW9 and PW11.
knife, Ex.P2.
2. Clothing accused/victim- Ex.P1 by PW1, PW4
(i) One bloodstained pant and PW11.
of deceased Manish
(gray/saleti colour),
Ex.P1.
Ex.PW9/A1 (colly) and
(ii) One blue colour Ex.PW9/A2 (colly) by
jeans pant and one PW7, PW9 and PW11.
printed shirt of accused
Mohsin, Ex.PW9/A1
(colly).
(iii) One gray colour
jeans pant and one
printed vest, Ex.PW9/A2
(colly).
3. Mobile Phone/Electronic NA
Object
4. Vehicle NA
5. Purse/earrings/identity NA
card
KUMAR Digitally signed by
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.07.11
15:28:05 +0530
(KUMAR RAJAT)
ASJ-07, Shahdara, KKD Courts,
Delhi/11.07.2026
State Vs Shakir & Anr. FIR No. 379/2021 PS Nand Nagri Page 40 of 40
