Delhi District Court
State vs Jitender Etc on 8 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF Sh. SANYAM JAIN:
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04: NORTH-WEST
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No. 47/2011
PS Kanjhawala
State Vs. Jitender etc.
Date of Institution: 27.05.2011
Date of Judgment: 08.04.2026
JUDGMENT
(a) Serial Number of the case : 529930/2016
(b) Date of commission of offence : 26.02.2011
(c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Mahender Singh
(d) Name of Accused, their : (1) Jitender S/o Gyan Chand, parentage & residence (2) Sunil S/o Gyan Chand, (3) Sanjay S/o Gyan Chand, All residents of:
Village and Post Office Ladpur, Delhi.
(e) Offence complained of : U/s: 323/341/452/506/34 IPC (f) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty (g) Final order : Acquittal FIR No. 47/2011 (PS Kanjhawala) U/s 323/341/452/506/34 IPC State Vs . Jitender etc. Page No. 1 of 19 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.04.08 16:31:19 +0530
LIST OF PROSECUTION / DEFENCE / COURT WITNESSES A) PROSECUTION RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE PW-1 Mahender Singh Complainant PW-2 Smt. Sunita Main witness PW-3 HC Satbir Singh Police Witness PW-4 ASI Ashok Kumar Police Witness PW-5 ASI Rakesh Kumar IO PW-6 Dr. Mahipal Singh Doctor Record Attendant, SGM PW-7 Sh. Jitender Kumar Hospital PW-8 ASI Rajesh Kumar Police Witness B) DEFENCE WITNESS, IF ANY RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE DW-1 Smt. Sunita Witness DW-2 Sh. Jasbir Singh Witness DW-3 Ms. Sonal Jose Asst. Ahlmad of the Court FIR No. 47/2011 (PS Kanjhawala) U/s 323/341/452/506/34 IPC State Vs . Jitender etc. Page No. 2 of 19 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.04.08 16:31:26 +0530 LIST OF PROSECUTION / DEFENCE / COURT EXHIBITS A) PROSECUTION Sr. No. EXHIBIT NUMBER DESCRIPTION Statement of Sh. Mahender
1. EXHIBIT No. PW1/A Singh
2. EXHIBIT No. PW1/B Site plan EXHIBIT No. PW1/C, Arrest memos of accused
3.
PW1/D and PW1/E persons
EXHIBIT No. PW3/A, Personal search memos of
4.
PW3/B and PW3/C accused persons
5. EXHIBIT No. PW4/A Present FIR
6. EXHIBIT No. PW4/B Endorsement on rukka
7. EXHIBIT No. PW5/A Tehrir
EXHIBIT No. PW6/A MLC No. 2896/2011 and
8.
and PW6/B MLC No. 2897/2011
EXHIBIT No. 7-A and 7- Prescription Slip and X-ray
9. B Plate No. 805
EXHIBIT No. 7-C and 7- Prescription Slip and X-ray
10. D (colly) Plate No. 804
11. EXHIBIT No. PW8/A Copy of DD entry No. 72B 12. EXHIBIT No. D-1 DD No. 73 FIR No. 47/2011 (PS Kanjhawala) U/s 323/341/452/506/34 IPC State Vs . Jitender etc. Page No. 3 of 19 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.04.08 16:31:31 +0530 13. EXHIBIT No. D-2 DD No. 75 14. EXHIBIT No. D-3 DD No. 88 B) DEFENCE:
Sr. No. EXHIBIT NUMBER DESCRIPTION
Evidence of CW-1 and
EXHIBIT No. DW3/1
1. CW-2 of Case no.
(OSR)
23726/2019
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1) The present case arises out of FIR No. 47/2011 registered under Sections 323/341/452/506/34 IPC, wherein it is alleged that on 26.02.2011, at about 7.00 pm, at House No. 485, Village Ladpur, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Kanjhawala, all the accused persons namely Jitender, Sunil and Sanjay, in furtherance of their common intention, after making preparation for causing hurt, committed house trespass and wrongfully restrained Sunita, and caused simple hurt on the person of complainant Mahender Singh and Sunita with blunt object (danda) and also threatened them to kill and thus thereby all the accused persons committed an offence punishable u/s 323/341/452/ 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2) After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in Court, FIR No. 47/2011 (PS Kanjhawala) U/s 323/341/452/506/34 IPC State Vs . Jitender etc. Page No. 4 of 19 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.04.08 16:31:35 +0530 cognizance of the offences was taken, the abovesaid accused persons were summoned and after that, they entered appearance, copy of the chargesheet alongwith the documents was supplied to them in compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3) Charge was then framed against all three the accused persons on 29.01.2013 for the commission of offences under Section 323/341/452/506/34 IPC, to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, and matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4) To prove its case, the prosecution examined 08 witnesses.
5) PW-1 Mahender Singh deposed that on 26.02.2011 at about 6.30 pm, accused Sanjay (correctly identified by the witness) parked his Honda City car in front of his house. He asked the accused Sanjay to adjust his car by moving it as witness's car was also to be parked there, upon which accused Sanjay started to abuse him and when he objected the same, accused Sanjay warned him that "Tujhe police ki naukari karna sikhata hoon". (Mahender Singh was a retired Sub Inspector from police). After that accused Sanjay went away from the spot and after sometime he returned with his brothers Jitender and Sillu (both were identified by the witness). Both Jitender and Sillu started to scuffle with PW-1 and started to beat him with a stick. All the accused persons gave beatings to PW-1 after entering the house. PW1 sustained injuries on his left knee, head and waist. On hearing the noise, daughter in law of brother of PW-1, namely Sunita came to save PW-1 but all the FIR No. 47/2011 (PS Kanjhawala) U/s 323/341/452/506/34 IPC State Vs . Jitender etc. Page No. 5 of 19 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.04.08 16:31:38 +0530 accused persons also gave beating to her. Thereafter, all the accused persons left his house and went outside and broke glasses of their Honda City car. They were saying now they will teach him to work in police. Daughter of PW-1 called the police and police recorded his statement which is Ex.PW1/A. Police officials took him to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital where his medical examination was got conducted. Police officials prepared site plan which is Ex.PW1/B. Police arrested the accused persons vide seizure memos which are Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E. He identified all the accused persons namely Jitender, Sunil and Sanjay in the Court. He also identified the photographs of said Honda City Car which are Ex.Al and Ex.A2. He further deposed that accused persons also threatened him to kill.
6) The witness was then cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. Witness agreed that he was a serving police officer on the date of incident and he had returned from duty at 6:00 PM on the date of incident. The witness answered that Sunita lived at point X in the site plan Ex. PW1/B which is after some distance. Witness did not call anyone else at the time of incident. Witness agreed that his daughter and wife were present inside the home at the time of incident. Witness was suggested that the scuffle took place between sons of the witness and the accused persons and the witness was not even present at the spot. The statement of the witness was recorded at the hospital.
7) PW2 Smt. Sunita deposed that on the day of incident at about 7.30 pm, she heard a loud noise in the house of Mahender Singh who is brother FIR No. 47/2011 (PS Kanjhawala) U/s 323/341/452/506/34 IPC State Vs . Jitender etc. Page No. 6 of 19 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.04.08 16:31:43 +0530 of her father in law. She went at house of Mahender Singh and found that accused persons namely Sanjay and Sunil were present at the house of Mahender Singh where Mahender Singh and his family mem- bers were present there and both the parties were fighting with each other. She also sustained injuries on her head by the danda of accused Sunil when she tried to separate them.
8) Ld. APP for the state took permission from the court to ask leading questions thereafter. The witness deposed that accused Jitender was not present there and only other accused were beating Mahinder. The witness denied the suggestion that she was restrained by the accused Jitender. She deposed that she is not aware how the glasses were bro- ken.
9) In cross examination, witness deposed that there were around 50 per-
sons present at the spot when she reached there. The sons of the PW1 Mahender were present at the spot. She stated that the accused sunil in- tentionally hit over her head.
10) PW3 HC Satbir Singh deposed that on 26.02.2011, he was posted at PS Kanjhawala and on that day, he was on the emergency duty along- with HC Rakesh Kumar. On that day, IO / HC Rakesh Kumar received a DD No. 71-B regarding quarrel at Ladpur village, upon which he alongwith IO went to the spot i.e. H. No. 485, Village Ladpur, Delhi where they found one Honda City Car of white colour bearing registra- tion No. DL-4CH-0390 and front and the rear wind shield of the car FIR No. 47/2011 (PS Kanjhawala) U/s 323/341/452/506/34 IPC State Vs . Jitender etc. Page No. 7 of 19 Digitally signed by SANYAM SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.04.08 16:31:48 +0530 were found broken. The beat staff officer and Addl. SHO, Kanjhawala and ACP, Bawana were already present at the spot. They came to know that the injured were already taken to SGM Hospital. He along- with IO went to the SGM Hospital where they met two injured admit- ted in the hospital and IO recorded statement of both the injured per- sons namely Sunita and one other male injured. IO prepared rukka on the basis of statement of male injured and handed over the same to Ct. Satbir, accordingly, he went to the PS and got the present FIR regis- tered and after that he returned to the hospital alongwith original rukka and copy of FIR which he handed over to the IO. He alongwith IO and complainant Mahender Singh went to the spot where IO prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant Mahender Singh. They along- with complainant went in search of accused persons but they were not found. He further deposed that IO seized the above mentioned car vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A1. Thereafter, they all returned to the police station and case property was deposited in the PS. On 27.02.2011, IO arrested all the accused persons at the instance of complainant vide ar- rest memos Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PWI/D & Ex.PW1/E, and their personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B & Ex.PW3/C. He identified all the three accused persons namely Jiten- der, Sunil and Sanjay in the court. He also identified the photographs of the said Honda City car bearing no DL-4CAH-0390. The said pho- tographs are Ex.P-1 (colly).
11) PW4 ASI Ashok Kumar deposed that on 26.02.2011, he was posted at PS Kanjhawla as duty officer and on that day, at about 9.20 pm, he re-
FIR No. 47/2011 (PS Kanjhawala) U/s 323/341/452/506/34 IPC State Vs . Jitender etc. Page No. 8 of 19 Digitally signed by SANYAM SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.04.08 16:31:52 +0530
ceived a rukka brought by Ct. Satbir sent by HC Rakesh and on the ba- sis of rukka, he recorded the present case FIR which is Ex.PW4/A (OSR). After registration of FIR he made endorsement on original rukka which is Ex.PW4/B, and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to Ct. Satbir to be handed over to HC Rakesh.
12) PW-5 ASI Rakesh Kumar / IO deposed that on 26.02.2011, he was posted at PS Kanjhawala and on that day he received DD entry no. 72- B. Upon which he alongwith Ct. Satbir went to the village Ladpur, Delhi, H.No. 485 where he found that one car bearing no. DL- 4CAH-0390 Honda City was stationed near the wall, and front, left and rear side glasses of the same were broken. Stones and pieces of bricks were lying on the ground in the street. ACP, SHO, ATO and In- spector Investigation were already present there. He came to know that the injured had already been shifted to SGM Hospital. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Satbir went to SGM Hospital, where he collected the MLCs of the injured persons. He recorded the statement of Mahender Singh which is Ex.PW1/A and he prepared tehrir which is Ex.PW5/A and handed over the same to Ct. Satbir for registration of FIR, who ac- cordingly, went to the PS. IO further deposed that he alongwith the complainant Mahender Singh went to the spot and there he interro- gated the complainant and prepared the site plan at the instance of Ma- hender Singh which is Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter, Ct. Satbir reached at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir to the IO. Thereafter, IO seized the above said car vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/ A-1. He further deposed that due to clerical mistake, he wrote down FIR No. 47/2011 (PS Kanjhawala) U/s 323/341/452/506/34 IPC State Vs . Jitender etc. Page No. 9 of 19 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.04.08 16:31:57 +0530 the registration number of the car as DL-4CH-0390 in the seizure memo in stead of DL- 4CAH-0390 which he had mentioned in the site plan Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter, IO arrested the accused persons vide arrest memos Ex.PWI/C, Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PWI/E, they were personally searched vide memos Ex.PW3/A, Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C. There- after, all the three accused persons and the case property were taken to the PS where the case property was deposited in malkhana. Further he also obtained the result of MLCs of injured persons Mahender Singh and Sunita. He also identified all accused persons in the court. He also identified the photographs of the car bearing no. DL- 4CAH-0390. The photographs are Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2.
13) PW-6 Dr. Mahipal Singh deposed that on 26.02.2011, he was posted as CMO at SGM Hospital and on that day, patient Mahender Singh and Sunita were brought to Casualty, SGM Hospital and they were exam- ined by him vide MLC No. 2896/2011 and 2897/2011 which are Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B respectively. He also identified the signa- tures of Dr. Manoj Dhingra on the MLCs Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B at point B.
14) PW-7 Sh. Jitender Kumar, Record Attendant, SGM Hospital produced the original X-ray Plate No. 805 and the Prescription Slip of the same pertaining to patient Sunita and the report of the same. The said Pre- scription Slip is Ex.7-A and the report of the said X-ray Plate is in red circle on the back side of Ex.7-A. The said X-ray Plate is Ex.7-B. He also produced the original two X-ray Plates No. 804 and the Prescrip-
FIR No. 47/2011 (PS Kanjhawala) U/s 323/341/452/506/34 IPC State Vs . Jitender etc. Page No. 10 of 19 Digitally signed by SANYAM SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.04.08 16:32:01 +0530
tion Slip of the same pertaining to patient Mahender Singh and the re- port of the same. The said prescription slip is Ex.7-C and the report of the said X-ray Plates is in red circle on the back side of Ex.7-C. The said X-ray Plates are Ex.7-D (colly).
15) PW-8 ASI Rajesh Kumar deposed that on 26.02.2011, he was posted at PS Kanjhawala as DD Writer and on that day he received the informa- tion from wireless operator regarding the quarrel and he recorded DD No. 72-B in Roznamcha register. He reduced this information in writ- ing which he handed over to HC Rakesh for necessary action. Beat Constable Bijender has also been informed about the said call. The in- formation was reduced at DD No. 72-B, true copy of DD No. 72-B is Ex.PW8/A.
16) Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of accused persons 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 accused persons who maintained their innocence. Accused persons stated that "We have been falsely implicated as we were not present at the place of incident. Police officials in connivance with the complainant has filed a false case against us. Complainant and his family members have broken glasses of our car." Accused persons have chosen to lead defence evidence.
17) Smt. Sunita was examined as DW-1, Sh. Jasbir was examined as DW-2 and Ms. Sonal Jose, Asst. Ahlmad of this Court was examined FIR No. 47/2011 (PS Kanjhawala) U/s 323/341/452/506/34 IPC State Vs . Jitender etc. Page No. 11 of 19 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.04.08 16:32:06 +0530 as DW-3. They were duly cross examined by Ld. APP for the State. DW-1 and DW-2 were residents of the same locality. DW-3 produced the original file of Case bearing no. 23726/2019 title as "Jitender vs. Ajay etc." Copy of the complaint of the said case alogwith evidence of CW-1 and CW-2 are Ex.DW3/1 (OSR). Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
18) Final arguments as advanced by the Ld APP for the State and by Ld. counsel for the accused have been carefully considered along with the evidence on record. Ld. counsel for the accused has mainly argued that there are many inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of the public witnesses which create a reasonable doubt. The alleged incident had not taken place inside the house and there are defence witnesses on record who have deposed the same.
19) 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 whatsoever 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.
20) There are two eye witnesses primarily around which the prosecution case has revolved around, both being allegedly the injured in this case. Before delving into the reliability of the testimonies of the eye FIR No. 47/2011 (PS Kanjhawala) U/s 323/341/452/506/34 IPC State Vs . Jitender etc. Page No. 12 of 19 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.04.08 16:32:11 +0530 witnesses, it is necessary to refer a recent judgment in which Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the principles involved in order to appreciate the testimonies of injured eye witnesses.
21) In Balu Sudam Khalde and Another vs. State of Maharashtra 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"26. When the evidence of an injured eye- witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his depositions.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be FIR No. 47/2011 (PS Kanjhawala) U/s 323/341/452/506/34 IPC State Vs . Jitender etc. Page No. 13 of 19 Digitally signed by SANYAM SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.04.08 16:32:15 +0530 taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded."
22) The offences with which the accused persons are charged with in this case are - Sec. 323 - punishment for voluntarily causing simple hurt; Sec. 341 - punishment for wrongful restraint; sec. 452 - House trespass after preparation for assault, hurt or wrongful restraint; sec. 506 - punishment for criminal intimidation read with Sec 34 i.e. acts done in furtherance of common intention. The evidences and testimonies compel this court to deal with each of the charges separately one after the other.
23) Sec 341 - Wrongful Restraint. The offence of wrongful restraint can be called to have been committed once an individual is obstructed/prevented from moving in any direction. In this case, PW1's testimony is completely silent if he was ever restrained by any of the accused persons. Secondly, PW2 has categorically denied in her testimony that she was never restrained by the accused persons during the scuffle. The allegations itself do not constitute the basic ingredients of the offence involved therefore court need not delve further into the veracity of the testimonies.
24) Sec. 452 - House trespass with preparation to commit hurt, assault or wrongful restraint. The testimony of the PW1 is largely silent about any entry by the accused persons in the house of the PW1. Secondly, FIR No. 47/2011 (PS Kanjhawala) U/s 323/341/452/506/34 IPC State Vs . Jitender etc. Page No. 14 of 19 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.04.08 16:32:20 +0530 the circumstances as have come on record also points towards the lack of any evidence as to entry of the accused persons in the house. It is an admitted fact that there was a daughter and wife of PW1 present in the house but they were never examined by the investigation or the prosecution. Furthermore, the PW1 lived on the first floor and if the accused persons had entered therein with the dandas, the commotion would have surely been different and evidences of forcible entry would have surely come on record as well. But the entire investigation seems to be silent about the same. Furthermore, DW1 and DW2's testimonies also support the version put forth by the accused that the entire incident had taken place out on the street and not in the house of the complainant. In view of no serious allegations pertaining to forcible entry, the charges under this section are also not sustainable.
25) Sec. 506 - criminal intimidation. Reliance in this regard, can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court on Section 506 IPC in Manik Taneja & Anr. Vs State of Karnataka & Anr, (2015) 7 SCC 423. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:- It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of 'Criminal intimidation'. The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant.' In this case, the words as allegedly used by the FIR No. 47/2011 (PS Kanjhawala) U/s 323/341/452/506/34 IPC State Vs . Jitender etc. Page No. 15 of 19 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.04.08 16:32:33 +0530 accused and stated by the complainant PW1 in his testimony do not qualify to the level where an alarm could have been caused to the complainant and from the circumstances as would be discussed later, it is also under doubt if the accused person had any intention to cause alarm to the complainant. The prosecution has also not bothered to corroborate the said fact by any other evidence or from the testimony of the witness himself. So, the charges under this section are also not sustainable.
26) Lastly, the only section i.e. Sec 323 - Punishment for voluntarily causing simple hurt, is left for the consideration of this court. There is no dispute to the effect that a dispute had arisen between the family of the complainant and the accused persons over the parking of a Honda car. The presence of accused persons at the spot is not in doubt and their identities are also well established. Only point for consideration of this court is if the act of violence has been proven by the prosecution as an act against the complainant and injured or not. The complainant PW1 was admittedly a police officer. It is also peculiar to note that senior police officials were present at the spot after the incident. At this point, it becomes imperative that the version of the accused persons be also taken into consideration. The accused have alleged that the sons of the complainant damaged the Honda car and stole 3.5 Lakh from the car. The alleged scuffle took place with the sons and which thereafter got escalated. PW1 stated that sons were not present at the spot which was directly contradicted by the statement of PW2. This court believes the presence of the sons of the accused FIR No. 47/2011 (PS Kanjhawala) U/s 323/341/452/506/34 IPC State Vs . Jitender etc. Page No. 16 of 19 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.04.08 16:32:47 +0530 persons at the spot. The contemporaneous DD entries as have been proven by DW3 also become relevant. They showcase that the defence raised by the accused persons is not an afterthought.
27) This court finds that the factum of scuffle is not in dispute and that the injuries incurred by both the PW1 and PW2 are also not in dispute. But, the fact that the victim worked in police department and have been given special treatment by the investigation agency cannot be ignored as well. No public witnesses were made to join the investigation even though the presence of public persons have come on record in the testimony of both the PW2 and the IO. No explanation has been forthcoming for such an anomaly. Therefore, it is yet to be determined if the said injuries can be said to have been caused voluntarily, which has been defined u/s 39 IPC.
28) It is an admitted fact that there were many people who had gathered at the place of incident. The scuffle caused injuries to other persons present there as well. The injuries were allegedly caused by dandas. The said dandas were not recovered. Rather, the defence has been successful in bringing DW1 on record who is also one of the injured. In these circumstances, prosecution has failed to prove that the scuffle and resultant injuries were started and caused by whom. The mere fact that other injured were also not made part of investigation and only family member of complainant was made a witness, raises doubt over the veracity of the whole case. This court believes that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. There are FIR No. 47/2011 (PS Kanjhawala) U/s 323/341/452/506/34 IPC State Vs . Jitender etc. Page No. 17 of 19 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.04.08 16:32:51 +0530 enough doubts that have been raised during the trial which raises doubt over the voluntariness of the trial as well as who was the aggressor. Even the prosecution's version itself starts from the admission that it was the complainant who started the quarrel first for parking. On the contrary, the accused's consistence defence, backed by DW2 shows that the complainant's sons were the aggressors. In light of these circumstances, in absence of any independent corroboration this court finds the accused persons to be not guilty of the offence u/s 323 IPC.
29) The MLCs have duly proved that the injury caused to the victims in this case was simple in nature and it has also been amply clear from the testimonies of the witnesses that accused had entered the house of complainant armed with sharp weapons.
DECISION:
30) In view of the above discussion, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the ac-
cused persons namely (1) Jitender S/o Gyan Chand, (2) Sunil S/o Gyan Chand, and (3) Sanjay S/o Gyan Chand, are hereby acquitted for the offence under Sections 323/341/452/506/34 IPC in the present case.
31) Accused persons are directed to furnish bail bond and personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each under section 437(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is directed to be present before the Ld. Appel- late Court as and when notice is served upon them.
FIR No. 47/2011 (PS Kanjhawala) U/s 323/341/452/506/34 IPC State Vs . Jitender etc. Page No. 18 of 19 SANYAM Digitally signed by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.04.08 16:32:56 +0530
32) File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on 08.04.2026.
Digitally signedSANYAM by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.04.08 16:33:01 +0530 (SANYAM JAIN) Judicial Magistrate First Class-04/ North West Rohini District Court/New Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 19 pages and each page bears my signature. Digitally signed SANYAM by SANYAM JAIN JAIN Date: 2026.04.08 16:33:06 +0530 (SANYAM JAIN) Judicial Magistrate First Class-04/ North West Rohini District Court/New Delhi FIR No. 47/2011 (PS Kanjhawala) U/s 323/341/452/506/34 IPC State Vs . Jitender etc. Page No. 19 of 19