Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Hammer Assault Case: Emphasizes Double Presumption of Innocence.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the State’s appeal against the acquittal of Mohd. Zahid, who had been charged under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly assaulting a man with a hammer during a quarrel. The Court upheld the trial court’s decision, observing that inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case and the absence of credible corroboration created reasonable doubt, which must benefit the accused.

Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri reiterated that an appellate court must be cautious in overturning an acquittal due to the principle of double presumption of innocence—first, the constitutional presumption that an accused is innocent until proven guilty, and second, the reinforcement of that presumption following an acquittal by the trial court.

1. The incident occurred on 20 August 2011, when the accused allegedly struck the victim, Tanseef, on the head with a hammer after a verbal altercation near Kardam Puri, Delhi.
2. The police registered FIR No. 337/2011 at P.S. Jyoti Nagar and charged the accused under Section 308 IPC (attempt to commit culpable homicide).
3. The Trial Court acquitted the accused in January 2016, finding inconsistencies in the testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence. The State appealed under Section 378 CrPC.

1. Contradictory evidence on location and sequence of events:
2. The prosecution witnesses, including the injured and his brother, gave inconsistent versions of the site of the assault—some saying near Yasin Hotel and others in front of the accused’s house. No independent public witness was examined despite the locality being populated.
3. Doubtful recovery and lack of forensic corroboration:
4. The hammer allegedly used in the assault bore no bloodstains and was never sent for forensic analysis. Discrepancies in the time of arrest and recovery statements further weakened the prosecution’s case.
5. Unnatural conduct of witnesses:
6. The Court noted that the injured’s brother’s behavior—fleeing the scene and failing to inform family or police immediately—was inconsistent with the natural reaction of a close relative witnessing an assault.
7. Unreliable eyewitness account:
8. The injured witness’s testimony conflicted with that of his brother and the investigating officer. Moreover, a court witness (the injured’s cousin) stated that the victim did not name the assailant when he regained consciousness.
9. Principle of double presumption of innocence:
10. The Court cited Ravi Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2022) 8 SCC 536 and Anwar Ali v. State of H.P. (2020) 10 SCC 166, emphasizing that interference with an acquittal is justified only when the trial court’s view is perverse. If two reasonable conclusions can be drawn, the one favoring the accused must prevail.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court’s view was a possible and plausible one.

Hence, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the respondent was upheld.

Held:

1. No interference warranted with the acquittal order.
2. Personal bond canceled; surety discharged.

Citation: CRL.A. 861/2017

Case: State v. Mohd. Zahid

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri

Reserved on: 1 November 2025

Date of Decision: 3 November 2025