Delhi District Court
State vs Rakesh Kumar Malik Etc on 13 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANYAM JAIN:
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04: NORTH-WEST
DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No. 138 /2013
PS Keshav Puram
STATE Vs. RAKESH KUMAR MALIK ETC
Date of Institution: 28.01.2014
Date of Judgment : 13.02.2026
JUDGMENT
(a) Serial Number of the case : 528518/2016
(b) Date of commission of offence : 05.05.2013
(c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Shiv Kumar
(d) Name of Accused persons, : (1) Rakesh Kumar Malik their parentage & residence (convicted vod. 31/03/2016) (2) Rahul Jain S/o Sh. N.K. Jain, R/o: SU-43, Pitam Pura, Delhi.
(e) Offence complained of : U/s: 287/338 IPC (f) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty (g) Final order : Acquittal FIR No. 138/2013 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 287/338 IPC State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Jain & ors. Page No. 1 of 14 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.13 16:13:19 +0530
LIST OF PROSECUTION / DEFENCE / COURT WITNESSES A) PROSECUTION RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE PW-1 Sh. Shiv Kumar Complainant / victim PW-2 Sh. Ram Avtar Father of complainant PW-3 Sh. P.K. Goswami Mechanical Inspector PW-4 Sh. Sanjay Eye-witness PW-5 Dr. Bhawna Gupta Who prepared MLC PW-6 SI Dev Raj IO PW-7 SI Ashok Kumar IO LIST OF PROSECUTION / DEFENCE / COURT EXHIBITS A) PROSECUTION Sr. No. EXHIBIT NUMBER DESCRIPTION Statement of complainant Sh. Shiv
1. EXHIBIT No. PW1/A Kumar
2. EXHIBIT No. PW1/B Panchnama of accidental motorcycle
3. EXHIBIT No. PW3/A Request letter for inspection
4. EXHIBIT No. PW3/B Inspection report of Lift
5. EXHIBIT No. PW4/A Statement of Sanjay
6. EXHIBIT No. PW5/A MLC of injured / complainant
7. EXHIBIT No. 6-A DD No. 27-B (by PW-6) FIR No. 138/2013 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 287/338 IPC State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Jain & ors. Page No. 2 of 14 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.13 16:13:27 +0530
8. EXHIBIT No. PW6/A Tehrir
9. EXHIBIT No. PW6/B Site Plan
10. EXHIBIT No. PW6/C Seizure memo of Attendance Register Mark-D-1, Z-1, Z-2 and Z-3 Copy of Inspection report, Attendance
11.
(colly) Registers
12. Mark-A Photographs of Lift
13. EXHIBIT No. PW6/D Statement of Ram Avtar
EXHIBIT No. PW7/A and Arrest memos of accused Rakesh
14
PW7/B Kumar Malik and Rahul Jain
EXHIBIT No. PW7/C and Personal search memos of accused
15.
PW7/D Rakesh Kumar Malik and Rahul Jain
16. EXHIBIT No. PW7/D/E Discharge Summary of comlainant
17 EXHIBIT No. Y-1 Present FIR
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1) The case of the prosecution is that on 05.05.2013 at about 10.30 am, in a lift at Jain Industrial Lighting Corporation, B-70/22, Lawrence Road, Delhi within jurisdiction of PS Keshav Puram the accused alongwith his co-accused Rakesh Kumar (already convicted) knowingly and negligently acted or omitted to take such order with the lift installed at Jain Industrial Lighting Corporation in the possession or under the care and supervision of accused as was sufficient to guard against any probable danger against human life and as a FIR No. 138/2013 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 287/338 IPC State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Jain & ors. Page No. 3 of 14 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.13 16:13:32 +0530 result of which, complainant Shiv Kumar sustained grievous hurt, and thereby committed offence u/s 287/338 IPC.
2) The case was registered under Sections 287 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertain respectively to act or omitted to take sufficient guard or precautions against any probable danger against human life, and to causing grievous hurt by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or personal safety.
3) After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in Court, cognizance of the offences were taken, the above said accused persons were summoned and after that, they entered appearance, copy of the chargesheet along with the documents was supplied to them in compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4) Notice was then framed against the accused persons namely Rakesh Kumar Malik and Rahul Jain on 15.07.2014 for the commission of offences under Section 287/338 IPC, to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, during trial, accused Rakesh Kumar Malik has pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced vide order dated 31.03.2016.
5) To prove its case, the prosecution examined 07 witnesses.
FIR No. 138/2013 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 287/338 IPC State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Jain & ors. Page No. 4 of 14 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.13 16:13:37 +0530
6) PW1 Shiv Kumar deposed that on 05.05.2013 when he boarded in lift to go to ground floor alongwith Sonu and Sandeep and suddenly lift stopped between first and ground floor and they shouted for Rakesh Kumar and also called to Sanjay, Ali and Inder (Supervisor) from inside the lift. There- after, accused Rakesh Kumar directed the both above said helper and supervisor to bring subbal and to use it to pressing the lift but lift suddenly fell down on the ground floor, due to which complainant and other person namely Sonu and Sandeep sustained injuries and complainant became uncon- scious. Thereafter the witness was taken to the hospital by the Accused Rakesh (manager) and Accused Rahul (owner). The witness further deposed that police took his signatures on some papers which he signed without looking at them. There- after, on 9/5/2013, the accused persons threatened the witness and upon that he called on PCR. His complaint regarding the same is Ex.PW1/A. He also deposed that he complained to the accused Rakesh Kumar and accused Rahul Jain regarding lift prior to the incident as the lift was not properly working and some noise was coming out of the lift when it was in use. PW-1 correctly identified the accused in the Court.
7) On cross examination, witness deposed that the entry to the premises was a general entry. The witness and other work- men were denied the usage of the lift. Witness admitted that Sh. N.K. Jain was the owner of the factory and was well at the time of accident. He denied the suggestion that he was FIR No. 138/2013 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 287/338 IPC State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Jain & ors. Page No. 5 of 14 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.13 16:13:41 +0530 never in the lift and had received injuries by his own negli- gent conduct. Accused Rahul was not present at the place of incident. His statement was recorded on the same day by the police but the same was not filed with the chargesheet. Ac- cused Rakesh had taken steps to repair the lift and he was in- formed about the faulty lift. Witness agreed that in his state- ment of 5/5/13 (date of incident), he has stated that he re- ceived injuries due to falling from stairs, though he clarified that the same was made under duress. The witness did not know the IO.
8) PW-2 Ram Avtar who is father of complainant and deposed that on 05.05.2013 at about 3.00 pm, he received information that his son got injuries and admitted in Safdarjung Hospital. Thereafter, he went to Safdarjung Hospital and complainant told him that complainant was stuck in lift and some person came to his help and use subbal to balance the lift, and sud- denly, lift fell on ground floor and his son sustained injuries on his back, and on 09.05.2013, complainant was given fur- ther medical treatment and his document is Ex.PW1/A. Wit- ness was admittedly not present at the spot and is not the eye witness in this case.
9) PW-3 P.K. Goswami deposed that on 31.05.2013, he re-
ceived letter from SHO PS Keshav Puram regarding inspec- tion of the lift situated at DSIDC complex, Lawrence Road, FIR No. 138/2013 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 287/338 IPC State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Jain & ors. Page No. 6 of 14 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.13 16:13:46 +0530 Delhi and said letter is Ex.PW3/A, thereafter, he prepared re- port Ex.PW3/B.
10) PW-4 Sanjay has deposed at the same line as deposed by PW-1 Shiv Kumar. Witness was confronted with his state- ment u/s 161 CrPC which was Ex. PW4/A. On cross exami- nation, witness deposed that accused Rahul's father was the owner of the premises and accused Rahul merely accompa- nied his father for assistance. Accused rahul had his own business.
11) PW-5 Dr. Bhawna Gupta who deposed that on 05.05.2013, she medically examined the patient and prepared MLC bear- ing no. 1451/2013 Ex.PW5/A and she referred patient to SR Ortho. On cross examination, witness deposed that there was no history of unconsciousness of the victim.
12) PW-6 SI Dev Raj deposed that on 05.05.2013, he received DD entry no. 27-B Ex.6-A, thereafter, he went to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital and collected the MLC of injured person and on 09.05.2013, complainant gave written complaint Ex.PW1/A, thereafter, he prepared tehrir Ex.PW6/A, he pre- pared site plan Ex.PW6/B, he also seized the report of inspec- tion of lift, Attendance Register of May 2013, and Atten- dance Register from 01.01.2013 to 30.04.2013 Ex.PW6/C, report Mark-D1 and Mark-Z1 (Attendance Register from 01.05.2013 to 11.05.2013) and Attendance Register Mark-
FIR No. 138/2013 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 287/338 IPC State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Jain & ors. Page No. 7 of 14 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.13 16:13:50 +0530
Z-2 (from 01.04.2013 to 30.04.2013), Attendance Register Mark-Z3 (from 01.01.2013 to 31.03.2013), photographs of sealed lift Mark-A. He also recorded the statement of Ram Avtar which is Ex.PW6/D.
13) PW-7 Retd. SI Ashok Kumar deposed that on 13.06.2016, he got inspected the lift and recorded the statement of com- plainant on 14.06.2016 and on 16.06.2016, he arrested both accused persons vide memo Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B and also conducted personal search vide memos Ex.PW7/C and Ex.PW7/D. PW-7 correctly identified the accused in the court. On cross examination, IO deposed that he was aware that father of accused is the owner of the premises and that the accused Rahul was running the said business. There is no proof which can show that accused Rahul was the owner of the premises. Witness could not remember the witnesses of whom he recorded the statement and he could not remember the number of times complainant's statement was recorded. There was a signboard on the lift stating that it is to be used for goods only. During cross examination, witness was con- fronted with copy of discharge summary which is Ex.PW7/ D/E which states reason for injury to be fall from stairs.
14) Separate statement under Section 330 BNSS (old 294 Cr.PC) of the accused was also recorded on 01.04.2022 whereby the accused admitted copy of FIR bearing number 138/2013 PS Keshav Puram Ex.Y-1, MLC No. 1451/2013 dated FIR No. 138/2013 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 287/338 IPC State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Jain & ors. Page No. 8 of 14 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.13 16:13:55 +0530 05.05.2013 of patient Shiv Kumar is Ex.PW5/A, whereupon witnesses namely DO/HC Ajay, and Dr. Achin were dropped from the list of witnesses.
15) Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of accused was recorded under Section 281 read with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to the ac- cused and he deposed that "I have been falsely implicated. Since I was neither present nor involved in the factory affairs since I was running my own firm." Accused persons has cho- sen not to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
16) Final arguments were then advanced on behalf of the State wherein it has been argued that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the accused be found guilty in the case. On the other hand, Ld. counsels for the accused persons have argued that sufficient material has not been brought on record to prove that the ac- cident took place due to rashness or negligence on the part of the accused persons.
17) The arguments as advanced by both the parties have been carefully considered along with the evidence on record.
FIR No. 138/2013 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 287/338 IPC State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Jain & ors. Page No. 9 of 14 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.13 16:14:00 +0530
18) It is a settled proposition of law that in a criminal trial, it is for the State to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence and it is for the prosecution to ensure that its case is able to stand on its own legs. The prosecution cannot derive any benefit whatso- ever from the weakness of the defence of the accused if any. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution version.
19) Before delving into the facts of the case, it is imperative that the court first discusses the ingredients of the offence alleged. The ingredients of offence u/s 287 IPC are - 1. A person does act rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person; 2. Or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life; 3. The same per- tains to the machinery; 4. The machinery be in his possession or under his care. The ingredient of Sec. 338 pertains to the causing of grievous injury by an act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others.
20) Based on the ingredients of the offence u/s 287 and 338, the common mental element which the prosecution was duty bound to prove was the rash and negligent act on the part of the accused. These words i.e "rash" and "negligent", have not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. However as per Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition the word 'Negligent' FIR No. 138/2013 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 287/338 IPC State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Jain & ors. Page No. 10 of 14 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.13 16:14:05 +0530 is characterized by a person's failure to exercise the degree of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised in the same circumstances. The terminology of criminal negli- gence has been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "S.N. Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradesh", AIR 1972 SC 685 as under : "Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that rea- sonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstance out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted............Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circum- stances of each case".
21) Coming to the facts of the case, it is an admitted fact that the accused was not the owner of the establishment. It was the ac- cused's father who was the real owner. But a doubt has been raised if the accused, too, was responsible for the day to day management of the factory as the son of the owner. It has come in the testimony of the witnesses that the accused used to accompany the owner of the establishment but the testi- monies are silent pertaining to the direct involvement of the accused in terms of either the possession or care of the said premises. The prosecution has failed to show that the employ- ees in the premises were answerable to the accused pertaining FIR No. 138/2013 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 287/338 IPC State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Jain & ors. Page No. 11 of 14 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.13 16:14:10 +0530 to the work assigned to them. Rather, it has come in the evi- dence that the complaints were made to the manager who has been already convicted in this case. It has also come in the ev- idence that the father of the accused was keeping well at the time of the alleged accident and it is beyond the imagination of this court as to why the prosecution did not inquire into the ownership/control of the premises before launching the present prosecution against the accused. Merely because the accused used to accompany his father to the premises is not sufficient to impute liability u/s 287 IPC, and as it was not his duty to safeguard against, the offence u/s 338 IPC is also not made out.
22) Furthermore, the said lift in which the accident took place was present in the common area. The victims were admittedly not allowed to use the said lift and were directed to use that lift only for shifting of the goods. IO himself has admitted that there was a board on the lift stating - "for goods only". De- spite such directions, the victims had used the said lift which further raises doubts over the existence of criminal negli- gence, but rather points towards contributory negligence on the part of the victims. This court is not drawing the conclu- sion that it was merely the fault of the victims but the fault as assignable to the establishment is not to the extent wherein criminality can be imputed.
FIR No. 138/2013 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 287/338 IPC State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Jain & ors. Page No. 12 of 14 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.13 16:14:15 +0530
23) Another fact that the court has to pay attention to is the first statement that the victim made to the police wherein he stated that he received the injuries due to falling from the stairs. The discharge summary report was also not brought on record as part of the chargesheet. The same statement which was recorded on the same day, and has been admitted by the vic- tim, was not made part of the chargesheet, which raises seri- ous doubts of manipulation in this case.
24) Lastly, as per the testimony of the injured pertaining to the faulty nature of the lift, the same was informed to the man- ager of the establishment Mr. Rakesh Kumar Malik and he had plead already plead guilty in this case and has been sen- tenced as well. In view of that, the negligence of the accused herein comes under further suspicion as there is nothing on record to show that it was the duty of the accused to repair the lift and despite understanding the consequences, the accused had omitted to perform his duty negligently or rashly.
25) Accordingly, the accused namely Rahul Jain S/o Narender Kumar Jain stands acquitted for the offence u/s 287/338 IPC in the present case.
26) Accused is directed to furnish fresh personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount, in accor- dance with Section 437A Cr.P.C.
FIR No. 138/2013 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 287/338 IPC State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Jain & ors. Page No. 13 of 14 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.13 16:14:21 +0530
27) File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court
on 13.02.2026 Digitally signed
SANYAM by SANYAM JAIN
JAIN Date: 2026.02.13
16:14:26 +0530
(SANYAM JAIN)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-04/North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 14 pages and each page bears my signature.
Digitally signedSANYAM by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.02.13 16:14:31 +0530 (SANYAM JAIN) Judicial Magistrate First Class-04/North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi FIR No. 138/2013 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 287/338 IPC State Vs. Rakesh Kumar Jain & ors. Page No. 14 of 14