Delhi High Court on Acquittal Appeal: Double Presumption of Innocence Reaffirmed.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court dismissed the State’s appeal against the acquittal of the accused, Mohd Zahid, under Section 308 IPC (attempt to commit culpable homicide), emphasizing the principle of “double presumption of innocence” that protects an accused after acquittal. The Court found inconsistencies in witness testimonies, the recovery process, and the investigation, holding that no interference was warranted with the trial court’s findings.

Background:

1. The appeal was filed by the State under Section 378 Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment dated 25 January 2016 of the Additional Sessions Judge, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, which acquitted the respondent of charges under Section 308 IPC.
2. The case arose from FIR No. 337/2011 registered at P.S. Jyoti Nagar, alleging that on 20 August 2011, the respondent attacked the complainant (PW-2) with a hammer, causing grievous injuries.
3. The prosecution examined ten witnesses, including the injured (PW-2), his brother (PW-3), and the Investigating Officer (PW-10), besides one Court Witness (CW-1).
4. The trial court found contradictions in testimonies regarding the place of incident, conduct of witnesses, and absence of corroboration through independent or forensic evidence, resulting in acquittal.

Court’s Observations:

1. The Court noted major discrepancies regarding the place of occurrence, as the DD entry placed it near Yasin Hotel while the site plan showed it in front of the respondent’s house.
2. The conduct of PW-3, the injured’s brother—who ran away without informing anyone—was found unnatural and inconsistent.
3. There were contradictions about the time of arrest and recovery of the hammer, and no public witness or forensic evidence supported the recovery.
4. The Court held that the injured’s testimony, though important, was inconsistent with other prosecution evidence, and no independent witnesses were examined despite the incident occurring in a crowded area.
5. Given the pre-existing enmity between parties and lapses in investigation, reasonable doubt arose in the prosecution’s case.

Legal Principles Applied:

1. The Court relied on Ravi Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2022) 8 SCC 536, and Anwar Ali v. State of H.P., (2020) 10 SCC 166, reiterating that:
2. An appellate court should be slow in reversing acquittals, especially when the trial court’s view is a possible one.
3. After acquittal, there exists a double presumption of innocence, which can only be displaced through strong and convincing evidence.
4. If two possible conclusions can be drawn, the one favorable to the accused must prevail.

Decision:

1. The Court held that the prosecution’s case suffered from material inconsistencies and lack of independent corroboration.
2. The trial court’s view was found plausible and not perverse.
3. Consequently, the State’s appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of Mohd Zahid was upheld.
4. The respondent’s personal bond was cancelled, and his surety discharged.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

1. Section 308, Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Attempt to commit culpable homicide.
2. Section 378, Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) – Appeal against acquittal.
3. Principle of Double Presumption of Innocence – Recognized under criminal jurisprudence and upheld by the Supreme Court.

Citation: 2025:DHC:1103

Case: State v. Mohd Zahid

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri

Date of Decision: 3 November 2025

Criminal Appeal No.: CRL.A. 861/2017