State (GNCT of Delhi) v. Mohd Aslam & Ors

Delhi High Court · 07 Jul 2026 · 2026:DHC:5543

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

CRL.L.P. 32/2017

2026:DHC:5543

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's acquittal of accused in a criminal assault case, emphasizing that appellate interference requires very substantial and compelling reasons.

Full Text

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.L.P. 32/2017
Date of Decision: 07.07.2026 IN THE MATTER OF:
STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for the State.
SI Surendra.

VERSUS

MOHD ASLAM & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ashish kumar Upadhyay, Mr. Varun Ranjan Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

JUDGMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

(ORAL)

1. The petitioner, by way of the present petition, filed under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeks to assail the order of acquittal dated 02.07.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No.44647/15 for offences punishable under Sections 308/452/323/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.08.2011, a DD entry regarding a quarrel near Masjid Old Mustafabad was assigned to the Investigating Officer. The complainant - Imamnuddin, lodged a written complaint on 21.08.2011 alleging that on 13.08.2011, his nephew Sarfaraz KUMAR KAURAV came to his house to meet his ailing grandparents. When Sarfaraz was going for tuition, Ahtsam, who resides with Dr. Abdul Salam demanded money from him and, upon refusal, beat him.

3. The matter was sorted out, but when the complainant enquired about the incident, Dr. Abdul Salam and Ahtsam threatened him with dire consequences if he took legal action. Later that evening, at about 8:30 pm, the complainant's nephew Ashraf Ali came to his house. Suddenly, all four accused Dr. Abdul Salam, Ahtsam, Mobin and Aslam forcibly entered the house and assaulted the victims with hockey, iron rod and baseball bat. The complainant, his wife and his nephew sustained injuries.

4. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and charges under Sections 452/325/308/34 IPC were framed against the respondents on 20.01.2014. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses to prove its case.

5. The trial Court, after a detailed examination of the evidence, acquitted the respondents, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court found that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of eight days, there were material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, the recovery of the weapon of offence was defective and doubtful, and there was prior enmity between the police and the accused.

6. The Court has perused the findings rendered by the trial Court and wholly concurs with the same.

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh[1], has laid down the principles governing appellate interference in appeals against acquittal. It held that while the appellate Court has wide powers of re-appreciating the evidence, it may only overrule or disturb the trial Court's acquittal if it has ‘very substantial and compelling reasons’ for doing so. The relevant principles are as under:

“70. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts

should follow the well-settled principles crystallised by number of

judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court‟s

acquittal:

1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the

trial court's acquittal if it has 'very substantial and compelling reasons'

for doing so. “Very substantial and compelling reasons” exist when:

4,159 characters total

(i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong;

(ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;

(iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in „grave miscarriage of justice‟;

(iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;

(v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;

(vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material documents like dying declarations/report of the Ballistic expert, etc.

(vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. 2. The appellate court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial court. 3. If two reasonable views can be reached—one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction—the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused.”

8. The Court does not find any reason to interfere into the order passed by the Sessions Court.

9. Finding no justification, the application seeking leave to appeal stands dismissed.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 7, 2026/p/ss

State (GNCT of Delhi) v. Mohd Aslam & Ors

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation