Delhi District Court
State vs Amar Singh on 1 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. JYOTI NAIN
JMFC-07, NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
State Vs. Amar Singh & Anr.
FIR No. 208/2012
PS. Jahangir Puri
Date of Institution of case : 19.03.2013
Date of Judgment reserved : 17.10.2025
Date on which Judgment pronounced : 01.11.2025
JUDGMENT
Case Number : 49/2/2013 5283721/2016
CNR Number : DLNT020007682013
Date of Commission of offence : 27.05.2012
Name of the complainant : Smt. Renu W/o Jitendra
R/o Jhuggi No. 206/151, K-block, near
DDA MIG Flats, Jahangir Puri, Delhi
Name and address of the accused : (1) Amar Singh S/o Kanahi Singh
R/o Jhuggi No. 178, MIG Flats, in front of
Metro Apartments, K-block, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi
(2) Viond S/o Sh. Amar Singh
R/o Jhuggi No. 178, MIG Flats, in front of
Metro Apartments, K-block, Jahangir Puri,
Delhi
Offence complained of : 324/452/506/34 IPC
Charge framed of : 324/341/452/506/34 IPC
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted 324/341/452/506/34 IPC
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI JYOTI NAIN
Date:
NAIN 2025.11.01
16:18:49
+0530
State Vs Amar Singh & Anr. FIR No. 208/2012 PS : Jahangir Puri 1 of 8
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT :
1. Case of the prosecution is that on 27.05.2012 at about 10:40 pm near Jhuggi No. 179, K-block, in front of MIG Flats, Metro Apartment, Jahangirpuri, Delhi, accused persons namely Amar Singh and Vinod alongwith co-accused Attar Singh (who could not be traced out) wrongfully restrained the way of Jitender and voluntarily caused hurt on his person with dandas. Further, at about 11:40 pm, at Jhuggi No. 206/151, K-block, near DDA MIG Flats, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, accused persons entered into the house of complainant Smt. Renu W/o Jitender while having dandas and voluntarily caused hurt on the person of complainant with danda and also caused hurt on the person of brother in law (dewar) of complainant namely Rahul and on the person of father in law ( sasur) of the complainant namely Jai Prakash with danda when they reached there to protect the complainant and also threatened them to kill.
2. FIR was registered. Investigation was carried out and charge sheet was filed in this case u/s 324/452/506/34 IPC against the accused persons. Thereafter, copy of charge sheet was supplied to the accused persons in compliance of sec. 207 Cr.PC.
3. Charge u/s 324/341/452/506/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons vide order dated 03.12.2013 by one of the Ld. Predecessors of this Court, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter matter was listed for PE.
4. In support of its case prosecution examined seven witnesses.
5. PW1 is Smt. Renu, W/o Sh. Jitender. She deposed that younger brother of her father in law had picked up the quarrel with accused persons over drying of clothes. On 27.05.2012 at 10:40 pm, her husband had gone out of the house to purchase milk and accused persons alongwith one more person Attar Singh wrongfully restrained her husband and took his search, when he objected, they started beating her husband with lathis and dandas with intention to kill him as a result of which, her husband received Digitally signed State Vs Amar Singh & Anr. FIR No. 208/2012 PS : Jahangir Puri 2 of 8 JYOTI by JYOTI NAIN Date:
NAIN 2025.11.01
16:18:43 +0530
injuries. A call was made at 100 number and police took her husband to the hospital for treatment but the accused persons but the accused persons were not arrested in that case. As a result of which, they were encouraged. At about 11:40 pm, these people came to her home, when her father in law was in the hospital alongwith her husband and she was alone with her children at home. All accused persons including Attar Singh forcibly entered into her house, gave her beatings and snatched her gold chain. When her brother in law Rahul came to rescue her, they gave beatings to her brother in law and he was given stitching on his eyes and head. Accused persons had given money to the police and therefore, the police did not take any action. She also received injuries and she was taken to the hospital by younger brother of her father in law in rickshaw. Her brother in law Rahul was taken to the hospital by PCR and she did not accompany him to the hospital as there was nobody at home with her children. Her brother in law became unconscious on seeing her clothes blood stained. She filed her complaint Ex. PW1/A bearing her thumb impression at point A and finally the case was registered against the accused persons. Her clothes were blood stained and police did not collect the same from her despite her request. She has brought those blood stained clothes i.e. one salwar and Kameez in the court. Accused persons alongwith their associate threatened to kill her when the case was registered against them. Police never came to her in the investigation of this case and did not prepare any site plan. However, police once obtained her thumb impressions on some papers when she received injuries.
This witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the accused persons.
6. PW2 is Sh. Rahul S/o Sh. Santosh. He deposed that he was working a private driver and on 27.05.2012 at about 11:30 pm, he came to his house and was present inside the room. At that time, he heard cries of his bhabhi Renu and he came out of the room and saw that both accused persons were having danda in their hands and were beating his bhabhi and when he tried to rescue his bhabhi, accused persons also gave beating to him with danda and he suffered injury on his eye by the blow of accused Digitally signed State Vs Amar Singh & Anr. FIR No. 208/2012 PS : Jahangir Puri 3 of 8 JYOTI by JYOTI NAIN Date:
2025.11.01 NAIN 16:18:39 +0530 Vinod. Accused persons had already beating his brother Jitender and he had already been taken to the hospital. All such incident had taken place inside the room of the jhuggi and one more person had also accompanied the accused persons. At that time, his chacha Jai Prakash came to rescue them but accused persons also gave beating to him and they also gave threat to kill them. He made a call to PCR and PCR reached at the spot and took them to BJRM hospital and his chacha also suffered injuries. Accused persons had quarreled with his chacha one or two days before the day of incident on the issue of tying a rassi in the street and accused persons had beaten them to revenge that issue.
This witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused persons.
7. PW3 is Sh. Jitender S/o Sh. Santosh. He deposed that he was working as a vegetable vendor and on 27.05.2012 at about 10:00 pm, he came to his house and at that time, he was going to buy milk for his child and when he reached in front of house of accused persons, they alongwith one other person namely Attar Sing attacked upon him with danda and he saved his head with his hand and bent down and he suffered injuries on his hand and back. He was saved by neighbours. PCR van reached there and took him to the hospital. After sometime, he came to know that accused persons had entered into his house and gave beatings to his wife and brother. His wife Renu suffered injuries in her head and his brother suffered injuries above his eye while his uncle Jai Prakah also suffered injuries on his head. Accused persons had quarreled with his chacha one or two days before the day of incident on the issue of tying a rassi in the street and accused persons had beaten them to revenge that issue. They went to police station but their complaint was not entertained.
This witness was duly cross-examined by Ld counsel for the accused persons.
8. PW-4 is Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary, CMO, BJRM hospital, Delhi. He deposed that he has been deputed by the MS, BJRM hospital to depose on behalf of Dr. Azia, Dr. Roshan and Dr. Deepak Gupta qua MLCs 42011, 42008,42009 and 419164 as the said doctors had left the hospital and he can identify their signatures.
Digitally signed by State Vs Amar Singh & Anr. FIR No. 208/2012 PS : Jahangir Puri 4 of 8 JYOTI JYOTI NAIN Date:
NAIN 2025.11.01
16:18:34
+0530
On 28,05.2012, patient Jai Prakash, aged 44 years, male was brought to Casualty with alleged history of physical assault and patient was examined by Dr. Azia, who referred the patient to Eye and Suregery OPD. He proved signatures of Dr. Azia at point A on MLC No. 42011 which is Ex. PW4/A. The said MLC was prepared under the supervision of Dr. Deepak.
On 28,05.2012, patient Renu, aged 25 years, female was brought to Casualty with alleged history of physical assault and patient was examined by Dr. Roshan, who opined the injury as simple. He proved signatures of Dr. Roshan at points A & B on MLC No. 42008 which is Ex. PW4/B. The said MLC was also prepared under the supervision of Dr. Deepak.
On 28,05.2012, patient Jitender, aged 27 years, male was brought to Casualty with alleged history of physical assault and patient was examined by Dr. Roshan, who opined the injury as simple. He proved signatures of Dr. Roshan at points A & B on MLC No. 42009 which is Ex. PW4/C. The said MLC was also prepared under the supervision of Dr. Deepak.
On 28,05.2012, patient Rahul, aged 21 years, male was brought to Casualty with alleged history of physical assault and patient was examined by Dr. Deepak Gupta, who opined the injury as simple. He proved signatures of Dr. Deepak Gupta at points A & B on MLC No. 41962 which is Ex. PW4/D. This witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused persons.
9. PW5 is ASI Subhash, No. 223/NW. He deposed that on 27.05.2012, he was posted at PS Jahangir Puri as Duty Officer from 4:00 pm to 12:00 midnight. On that day at about 11:55 pm, he received a call from wireless operator regarding quarrel in jhuggis which he entered in rojnamcha vide DD entry No. 27A and informed ASI Mangat Ram to take necessary action on the same. He has proved the said entry no 27A in rojnamcha as Ex. PW5/A (OSR).
This witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused.
Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI NAIN Date:
State Vs Amar Singh & Anr. FIR No. 208/2012 PS : Jahangir Puri 5 of 8 NAIN 2025.11.01 16:18:30 +0530
10. PW-6 is ASI Jagbir Singh, No. 1557/PCR. He deposed that On 21.08.2012, he was posted at PS Jahangir Puri as Head Constable and was working as Duty Officer from 04:00 pm to 12:00 am (midnight). On that day at about 05:00 p.m., he received a complaint through Reader to SHO concerned. On the basis of the said complaint, he registered the FIR bearing FIR No. 208/12, copy of which is Ex. PW6/A (OSR) bearing his signature at point A. The said FIR was registered in the computer installed at CIPA Room on his dictation and direction. Contents of the FIR was fed in the computer in which FIR is registered in routine manner. The printout were obtained. One print out was kept in the register maintained at the police station. He also made endorsement on the rukka which is Ex. PW6/B bearing his signature at point A. After registration of this case, original complaint and copy of the FIR were handed over to ASI Mangat Ram for further investigation.
This witness was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the accused persons despite opportunity being given.
11. PW-7 HC Amar Singh, No. 1330, Central, PS Jama Masjid. He deposed that on 30.08.2012, he was posted at PS Jahangir Puri as Constable. On that day, he alongwith ASI / IO Manjeet Ram went to the Jhuggi No. 178, K Block, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, where they met with accused persons Amar Singh and Vinod. IO made inquiry from both the accused persons separately regarding the present case. Thereafter, IO arrested and personally searched of the accused Vinod vide memos which are Ex. PW7/A and Ex. PW7/B bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, IO arrested and personally searched of accused Amar vide memos which are Ex. PW7/C and Ex. PW7/D bearing his signature at point A. IO recorded disclosure statement of accused persons Amar Singh and Vinod vide disclosure memos which are Ex. PW7/E and Ex. PW7/F bearing his signature at point A. No case property was recovered at that time. IO recorded his statement.
This witness was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for the accused persons despite opportunity being given.
Digitally signed by JYOTI JYOTI NAIN Date:
State Vs Amar Singh & Anr. FIR No. 208/2012 PS : Jahangir Puri 6 of 8 NAIN 2025.11.01 16:18:25 +0530
12. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed on 12.07.2024. Statements of the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 18.11.2024. All incriminating material brought on record were put to the accused persons to which they denied the allegations made against them and deposed that they were falsely implicated in the present case and nothing was recovered from their possession. Accused persons wanted not to lead any evidence in their defence. Arguments
13. On the basis of the above oral and documentary evidence on record, Learned APP for the State requested for conviction of the accused persons and severe punishment, as per law.
14. On the other hand, Learned defence counsel contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons, since, all the public witnesses have turned hostile during cross examination. That reliance can not be placed on their testimony. Accordingly, he prayed for the acquittal of the accused persons. Court observations
15. In the present case, during examination in chief, PW1, PW2 and PW3 have to an extent supported the case of prosecution but PW1 denied that she was ever made to join investigation by the police and further denied that the site plan was prepared at her instance. Further, during cross-examination, she completely resiled from her testimony as given during examination in chief and stated that she had not seen the faces of accused persons, thus, can not identify them. Also, in supplementary statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C, PW1 had stated that during the scuffle, her gold chain fell on the spot and that the allegations of snatching her chain by accused persons as mentioned in the complaint given by her to the DCP were false, however, during examination in chief she stated that accused persons snatched her gold chain whereas during cross-
examination she denied that it was accused persons who snatched her chain. Not just PW1 but PW2 as well as PW3 during cross-examination resiled from their earlier statements and did not support the case of prosecution. During cross-examination, PW2 stated that he was not present inside the room when the incident took place and Digitally signed State Vs Amar Singh & Anr. FIR No. 208/2012 PS : Jahangir Puri 7 of 8 JYOTI by JYOTI NAIN Date: 2025.11.01 NAIN 16:18:21 +0530 had not seen the accused persons at the spot. Similarly, PW3 during cross-examination stated that he received injuries during a quarrel with unknown persons whose faces he could not see due to darkness.
16. Owing to the aforesaid contradictions and inconsistencies, this court is of the opinion that the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3 are not credible enough to lead to the conviction of accused persons. It can be safely culled out that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused persons. Therefore, the accused persons namely Amar Singh and Vinod are hereby acquitted from the offences u/s 324/341/452/506/34 IPC. Digitally signed File be consigned to Record Room. JYOTI by JYOTI NAIN Date:
2025.11.01 NAIN 16:18:17 +0530 Announced in open court (JYOTI NAIN) on 1st Day of November, 2025 JMFC-7/North District Rohini Courts/Delhi State Vs Amar Singh & Anr. FIR No. 208/2012 PS : Jahangir Puri 8 of 8