Double Presumption Of Innocence Operates In Favour Of Accused After Acquittal: Delhi High Court While Considering State's Appeal Against Acquittal

The High Court was considering an appeal preferred by the State under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C., seeking the setting aside of the judgment of acquittal of an accused in a case registered under Sections 392 and 411 of the IPC.

The Single Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held, “It is trite law that an appellate Court must be slow to interfere in an appeal against acquittal unless the findings of the Trial Court are shown to be perverse. The principle of double presumption of innocence, which operates in favour of an accused after acquittal, is well settled.”

Additional Public Prosecutor Pradeep Gahalot represented the Appellant while Advocate RPS Bhatti represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was alleged that while the complainant was going for an evening walk, the respondent came to him from the front side, frightened him by putting a knife to his neck, and snatched his gold chain. The respondent then attempted to flee, but the complainant raised an alarm, and the public present at the spot managed to overpower and apprehend the respondent. A gold chain from the respondent's left hand and a knife from his right hand were recovered. He was arrested, and based on the complainant’s statement, the FIR was registered.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the Trial Court observed that while, as per the prosecution’s own case, persons apprehended the respondent at the spot of the incident, no public witnesses besides the complainant joined in the investigation. The Bench noticed that there were 2-3 shops in front of Shanti Nursing Home, near the spot of the incident, but the I.O. admitted in his cross-examination that he did not make any inquiry from the said shopkeepers as to how the respondent came to sustain the injuries suffered by him. “The shopkeepers could have helped prove the prosecution case beyond doubt, and no cogent explanation has been provided for the I.O.’s failure to do the needful with respect to making inquiries from the said shopkeepers”, it added.

The Bench further stated, “Despite police proceedings carrying on for quite some time and public witnesses being easily available at the spot, none were joined, which creates doubts about the veracity of the case.” On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench found that while the prosecution claimed that the recovered chain was sealed by the I.O. at the spot itself by placing it in a plastic container with the seal of “SK”, the complainant had deposed that the police showed him the gold chain at the police station. The Bench also found the two versions put forth by the complainant to be mutually inconsistent.

“The quality of the investigation, even other than the non-joining of public witnesses, weakens the prosecution case. There are discrepancies regarding the place and time of arrest and the signing of documents”, the order read. As per the Bench, the identification of the weapon of offence, i.e., the knife, was also not free from doubt as the complainant could not identify the same upon it being produced in Court, citing lapse of time. The Bench thus held that the prosecution had not established the guilt of the respondent beyond a reasonable doubt, and the view taken by the Trial Court was plausible, well-reasoned, and supported by the evidence on record.

Thus, dismissing the appeal, the Bench upheld the acquittal of the respondent under Sections 392 and 411 of the IPC.

Cause Title: State (Govt Nct of Delhi) v. Vasim (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:12044)

Appearance

Appellant: Additional Public Prosecutor Pradeep Gahalot, SI Naresh Lal Sharma,

Respondent: Advocate RPS Bhatti

Click here to read/download Order