Delhi Court Acquits Man Accused of Assaulting Public Servant, Cites ‘Unreliable Testimony’

Judicial Magistrate Shashank Nandan Bhatt of Tis Hazari Court found “serious infirmities” in the evidence and ruled that the complainant’s testimony was unreliable and not supported by credible material.

The case stemmed from an FIR registered at Rajouri Garden police station (FIR No. 575/2017) against Mandeep Singh under Sections 186, 353 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalise obstruction, assault, or causing hurt to a public servant.

According to the prosecution, Singh was stopped on October 7, 2017, at a Subhash Nagar traffic signal while riding a scooter. ASI Satish Kumar, posted with the Rajouri Garden Traffic Circle, alleged that Singh had violated the stop line and was not wearing a helmet. When asked to produce his driving licence, Singh allegedly abused and assaulted the officer, grabbed his collar causing a button to snap, scratched his neck, and fled the spot leaving behind his scooter.

On this complaint, the police registered an FIR two days later, on October 9, 2017. Singh was arrested on October 16, 2017, allegedly at the instance of a secret informant.

The Court, however, noted multiple lapses in the investigation and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s story.

“The FIR was lodged after a delay of two days without any explanation, especially when the complainant himself is a police officer,” the magistrate said, adding that such a delay “leaves scope for manipulation and foul play.”

Further, the allegedly torn uniform of the ASI was never seized, depriving the prosecution of key corroborative evidence. No test identification parade (TIP) was conducted, despite the complainant admitting he did not know Singh prior to the incident. Instead, the accused was shown to the complainant at the police station after his arrest; a procedure the court described as “highly improbable” and unreliable.

The magistrate also highlighted contradictions: ASI Satish Kumar claimed a public person helped him apprehend Singh, but this individual was neither identified nor examined during trial. Another individual named in the ASI’s complaint, Umesh, was also never produced as a witness.

The Court observed that the prosecution’s case hinged solely on the complainant’s testimony, which was “unreliable and did not inspire confidence.”

“Additionally, for reasons best known to the investigating officer, the allegedly torn uniform of the complainant was never recovered… which again leaves out the scope of any corroboration,” the Court noted.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the magistrate reiterated that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof. Criminal conviction requires cogent, credible, and unimpeachable evidence.

Holding that the prosecution had failed to establish its case as per the standard of proof required in criminal law, the court acquitted Mandeep Singh of all charges under Sections 186, 353, and 332 IPC.

“After appreciating all the material evidence on record, in the considered opinion of this court, the prosecution cannot be regarded to have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt,” the order concluded.

Case Title: State v. Mandeep Singh

Judgment Date: August 11, 2025

Bench: JMFC Shashank Nandan Bhatt