Delhi High Court on Benefit of Doubt in Attempt to Murder Case: Hostile Witnesses and Lack of Corroboration Lead to Acquittal

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court set aside the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC, holding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found that both injured witnesses had turned hostile, the name of the accused was introduced belatedly despite prior acquaintance, and there was neither recovery of the weapon nor corroboration from independent witnesses. These circumstances, coupled with inconsistencies in the testimony and doubtful arrest procedure, entitled the appellant to the benefit of doubt.

Background:

• The appellant had been convicted by the trial court under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹20,000.

• The case arose from a 2014 incident in which two men, Vikram @ Vicky and Sanjeev @ Shanty, sustained stab injuries near Major Dhyan Chand Sports Complex, Delhi.

• The prosecution alleged that Karan, along with unidentified associates, assaulted the victims following a prior quarrel.

• During trial, 17 witnesses were examined, including the injured and medical officers. The trial court accepted the prosecution’s version and convicted the appellant.

• On appeal, the defence argued that the injured had not named Karan in their medical records or initial statements, and later identification was an afterthought. The weapon of offence was never recovered.

Court’s Observations:

• The Court noted that although the accused was known to both victims, his name did not appear in their MLCs or in the discharge summary, where the assailants were recorded as “unknown persons.”

• Both injured witnesses — Sanjeev @ Shanty (PW-6) and Vikram @ Vicky (PW-7) — gave inconsistent and self-contradictory statements. Both later turned hostile and denied the appellant’s involvement.

• The subsequent introduction of the appellant’s name after a considerable lapse of time, despite prior acquaintance, was found to seriously impair the credibility of the prosecution case.

• The Court found the manner of arrest suspicious — both injured allegedly went together to the police station nearly three weeks after the incident and pointed out the accused near a public toilet, leading to his immediate arrest.

• The Court further noted that the weapon was not recovered, there were no independent public witnesses, and the alleged associates of the accused were neither identified nor prosecuted.

• In view of these material deficiencies, the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Section 307, Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Attempt to murder.

• Section 34, Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Common intention.

• Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) – Examination of accused.

• Section 428, Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) – Set-off of pre-trial detention.

Decision:

• The conviction and sentence dated 01.08.2024 and 08.10.2024 were set aside.

• The appellant was acquitted of all charges and directed to be released forthwith, unless required in connection with any other case.

• The Court reiterated that benefit of doubt must go to the accused where material contradictions, unreliable witnesses, and absence of corroborative evidence create reasonable uncertainty about guilt.

Citation: CRL.A. 1069/2024

Case: Karan v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri

Date of Decision: 31 October 2025

Criminal Appeal No.: 1069 of 2024