Acquittal follows in Section 308 IPC case as injured and eyewitnesses fail to identify the assailants.

The Appellants (Tasleem, Kale, and Janu) were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, under Section 308 read with Section 34 of the IPC for allegedly assaulting PW2 (Galib) with iron rods and bricks on 04.04.2012 following a dispute over parking a fruit cart

The prosecution relied on the First Information Statement (FIS) of the injured (PW2) and the testimony of an eyewitness (PW5).

However, during the trial, PW2 turned hostile, stating he was hit from behind by an unknown person and regained consciousness only in the hospital

Similarly, PW5 denied seeing the appellants assault the victim

Despite the lack of ocular support, the trial court convicted the appellants on 17.01.2017

Whether the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants/accused persons by the trial court are sustainable in light of the hostile testimony of material witnesses

Whether the non-compliance with the mandatory hearing under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C. vitiated the trial proceedings

The court applied Section 308 of the IPC (Attempt to commit culpable homicide) and Section 34 of the IPC (Common intention)

Regarding procedural irregularities, the court applied Section 232 of the Cr.P.C. (Acquittal) and Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. (Commitment of case)

It also relied on the principle established in *Moidu K. vs. State of Kerala* (2009), holding that non-compliance with Section 232 Cr.P.C. does not vitiate proceedings unless "serious and substantial prejudice" to the accused is demonstrated

The High Court observed that while medical evidence confirmed PW2 sustained injuries, there was a total failure of the prosecution to link those injuries to the appellants

The court noted that PW2 (the victim) specifically deposed in cross-examination that the three accused persons had not caused his injuries

PW5, the only other alleged eye-witness, also resiled from his previous statement, denying that the appellants were armed or involved in the beating

Regarding the procedural lapse under Section 232 Cr.P.C., the court found no prejudice caused to the accused

However, the court determined that the trial court's reliance on the case record to convict was "grossly erred" because the foundational testimony of the injured party and the eye-witness did not support the prosecution's version

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment dated 17.01.2017 and order on sentence dated 21.01.2017, and acquitted the appellants under Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C.

The appellants were ordered to be set at liberty and their bail bonds cancelled