Saket Court: In a criminal case filed under Sections 365, 394 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the Single Judge Bench of Chhavi Bansal, J., acquitted the accused persons, holding that in the absence of identification of the accused persons by the complainant or witnesses and the non-recovery of any case property, the charges under Sections 365, 394 and 34 of the IPC remained unsubstantiated.
Background
Allegedly, in 2016 in front of Croma Centre, South Ex Part-2, the accused persons forcefully entered into the car of the complainant, that all the accused persons pushed the complainant (who was sitting in the driver’s seat) to the rear portion of the car and down at the floor of the car, beat him, and robbed him of the car keys, his mobile phone, Rs 3,000 cash, ATM Cards, and his driving license. Furthermore, one of the accused persons had a pistol in their possession and they caused hurt to the complainant while carrying out the aforesaid offence. Accordingly, the present FIR was registered against the accused persons, and ultimately, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 394, 397, 365, 506, and 34 of the IPC.
After cognizance and a few rounds of being committed to different Courts, the matter was ultimately sent to the Saket Court, which tried the accused persons under Sections 365, 394, and 34 of the IPC.
Analysis
The Court stated that the case arose out of serious allegations of abducting, robbing, and causing hurt to the complainant in the execution of the robbery. However, the complainant was the only public witness, and the prosecution could not bring any other public witness.
The Court noted that the complainant could not identify the accused persons during his testimony in Court. Despite cross-examination, nothing material came on record regarding the identity of the culprits. There was also no evidence, like CCTV footage/photographs, which could show the presence or involvement of the accused persons in the entire series of transactions alleged by the complainant. Thus, the Court held that there was no direct identification of the accused persons as the culprits of the offence described by the complainant.
The Court further noted that all other witnesses were police witnesses, and none of them witnessed the incident taking place. They merely deposed regarding their role in the investigation of the matter. Even the case property, which was allegedly robbed, could not be recovered from any of the accused persons or otherwise. Thus, in the absence of identification of the accused persons and the non-recovery of any case property, the Court held that the charges under Sections 365, 394, and 34 of the IPC remained unsubstantiated against the accused persons.
Reiterating that the prosecution’s failure to prove its case against the accused persons beyond a reasonable doubt resulted in the accused receiving the benefit of doubt, the Court held that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt in the present matter.
Accordingly, the Court acquitted the accused persons, holding that there were no concrete merits in the prosecution’s case.
[State v. Sharad Pandey, 2025 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Del) 42, decided on 26-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: APP Akash Chaturvedi
For the respondent: Asst. LADC Tanvi Sharma
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
