Delhi High Court on Appeal Against Acquittal under Section 308 IPC: Double Presumption of Innocence Reaffirmed.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the State’s appeal under Section 378 CrPC against the acquittal of the respondent accused in a case under Section 308 IPC (attempt to commit culpable homicide). The Court held that the trial court’s acquittal was justified as the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It reiterated that an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence, invoking the principle of “double presumption of innocence.”

1. The prosecution alleged that in 2011, the accused, Mohd Zahid, struck the complainant, Sadiq, on the head with a hammer during a quarrel, causing grievous injuries.
2. The FIR was registered under Section 308 IPC at the local police station.
3. After the trial, the Sessions Court acquitted the accused on 12.04.2017, noting contradictions in witness statements and lack of corroboration.
4. The State filed an appeal under Section 378 CrPC challenging the acquittal, contending that the trial court had erred in its appreciation of evidence.

1. The Court found material inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case regarding the time, place, and sequence of the incident.
2. The alleged weapon (hammer) was not recovered at the instance of the accused in a manner inspiring confidence, and no forensic evidence linked it to the crime.
3. No independent witnesses were examined despite the incident occurring in a residential area.
4. The testimony of the injured witness and his brother was inconsistent and contradicted by the investigating officer’s version.
5. Relying on Ravi Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2022) 8 SCC 536 and Anwar Ali v. State of H.P., (2020) 10 SCC 166, the Court reiterated that an appellate court must exercise caution before overturning an acquittal, given the “double presumption of innocence” in favor of the accused.
6. Finding no perversity or illegality in the trial court’s reasoning, the High Court upheld the acquittal.

1. The criminal appeal filed by the State was dismissed.
2. The respondent’s bail and surety bonds were discharged.
3. The Court reaffirmed that mere suspicion cannot replace proof and that inconsistencies in evidence warranted benefit of doubt.

1. Section 308, Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Attempt to commit culpable homicide.
2. Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) – Appeal against acquittal.
3. Article 21, Constitution of India – Right to life and personal liberty, including protection against wrongful conviction.

Citation: 2025:DHC:751436

Case: State v. Mohd Zahid

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri

Date of Decision: 1 November 2025

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