-
by sayum
26 August 2026 1:49 PM
“In The Absence Of Reliable Ocular Evidence Proving Assault And Identity Of Accused, Essential Ingredients Of Sections 186 & 353 IPC Remain Unestablished”, Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of two accused who were alleged to have assaulted a public servant and obstructed him in the discharge of official duties.
The single-judge bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had assaulted or obstructed the public servant. The Court found that the prosecution case rested primarily on the testimony of a single witness, which lacked corroboration from other material witnesses who either did not support the incident or failed to identify the accused persons.
The High Court therefore upheld the appellate court’s decision acquitting the accused of offences under Sections 186 and 353 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Background of the Case
The prosecution case originated from an incident dated 26 June 2003, when PW1, the Chief Engineer of the Married Accommodation Project Zone, CPWD, alleged that a mob of around 20 persons entered his office at Curzon Road Barracks, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, at approximately 3:05 PM.
According to the complaint, the group allegedly abused and assaulted PW1, with four persons from the group striking him on the head, neck and temple. It was also alleged that during the incident certain items in the office were damaged, including a glass of water, the complainant’s spectacles, and telephone equipment.
Based on PW1’s written complaint, an FIR was registered at Parliament Street Police Station. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed alleging offences under Sections 160, 186, 353, 341, and 451 read with Section 34 IPC.
The trial court eventually framed charges under Sections 186 and 353 read with Section 34 IPC and, after trial, convicted the accused in June 2014, sentencing them to one year simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 353 IPC along with fine, and two months imprisonment for the offence under Section 186 IPC.
However, on appeal, the Additional Sessions Court, Patiala House Courts, reversed the conviction and acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the State filed the present appeal before the Delhi High Court.
Legal Issues Before The High Court And Court’s Observations
The principal issue before the High Court was whether the prosecution had successfully established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons assaulted the complainant and obstructed him while he was performing official duties.
The State argued that the appellate court erred in rejecting the testimony of the complainant merely because other witnesses did not support the prosecution case, emphasizing that conviction can be based on the testimony of a single reliable witness.
However, the respondents contended that the appellate court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that the prosecution failed to establish either the occurrence of assault or the identity and participation of the accused persons.
The High Court carefully analysed the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and found significant weaknesses in the prosecution case.
The Court noted that PW1 (the complainant) stated that a group of about 20 persons entered his office and assaulted him, causing damage to items in the room. However, the Court observed several inconsistencies and omissions in his testimony, including the fact that certain details such as the bolting of the door were not mentioned in the original complaint.
More importantly, the testimony of other material witnesses did not support the alleged occurrence.
PW3, a stenographer in the office, testified that he saw 30–40 persons raising slogans, but did not witness any abuse, manhandling, or damage to property. He also stated that he was not informed by PW1 about any assault or damage. Even after being cross-examined by the prosecution, PW3 denied earlier statements allegedly given to police and failed to identify the accused persons in court.
Similarly, PW5 (Superintending Engineer) and PW6 (Executive Engineer) testified that they heard slogans outside and later went to PW1’s office, where they saw disturbed articles such as a broken spectacle and scattered objects. However, neither of them witnessed the assault, and both failed to identify the accused persons present in court.
The High Court emphasised that the identity and participation of the accused persons were not established, as the witnesses who were present nearby could not confirm their involvement.
The Court also noted that while the complainant alleged that the accused were among the persons present at Nirman Bhawan, the supporting witnesses were unable to confirm that the person detained by security was one of the accused.
In light of these evidentiary deficiencies, the Court concluded that the prosecution had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court observed:
“The case of PW1 regarding assault or damage is not supported by PW5 and PW6… they did not witness any abuse, manhandling or damage being caused to PW1.”
It further held:
“In the absence of any reliable ocular evidence, the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 186 and 353 IPC have not been established beyond reasonable doubt.”
The Court therefore found no infirmity in the appellate court’s reasoning that granted the benefit of doubt to the accused persons.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the State’s appeal, affirming the appellate court’s acquittal of the accused persons. The Court reiterated the settled criminal law principle that conviction cannot be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish the occurrence and identity of the accused through reliable evidence.
Since the testimony of the complainant remained uncorroborated and was contradicted by other material witnesses, the Court held that the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
Date of Decision: 10 March 2026
