Delhi District Court
State vs Bunty Singh on 23 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAVI
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-07, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
NEW DELHI DISTRICT: NEW DELHI
DLND020006882007
FIR No. 508/2006
State Vs. Bunty Singh
Cr C No. 56603/2016
PS: Tilak Marg
U/s: 325 IPC
JUDGMENT
Cr. Case No. 56603/2016
Name of the Complainant Tara Chand S/o Sh. Gopal Dass
R/o H. No. 657, 2nd 60 Futta Road,
Badarpur, New Delhi
Name of the accused & his Bunty Singh S/o Sh. Nanak Chand
parentage and address R/o Village Barola Ka
Nangla, P.O. Kunwarpur, PS
Pahasu, Distt. Balandshahar,
UP.
Offence complained of 325 IPC
Date of Judgment 23.04.2026
Plea of accused Accused pleaded not guilty
Final Order Aquitted for the offences 325 IPC
FIR No. 508/2006 State vs. Bunty page No. 1 of 8
Digitally signed
ravi
by ravi
Date:
2026.04.23
18:10:30 +0530
JUDGEMENT
1. The prosecution case is that complainant Tara Chand was travelling in bus No. DL 1PB 3186 (Route No. 405) from Badarpur to Chidiyaghar/Nizamuddin. When the bus reached the red light at SB Marg/Mathura Road, the conductor (accused Bunty Singh) allegedly told him to alight as the bus fare of Rs. 5/- was only up to that area. When the complainant was about to get down, the accused allegedly caught hold of him from his neck, pulled him inside the bus through the rear window, and started beating him. It is further alleged that when the bus reached Kharol Masjid, the accused pushed the complainant out of the bus from the rear window, causing the complainant to fall on the road, sustaining injuries on his right hand, right eye, and face, including abrasions on both hands, a CLW over the upper lip, abrasion below the right eye, and a fracture in his right hand.
2. The accused Bunty Singh S/o Nanak Chand was charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The charge, as framed on 06.02.2009. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by order dated 28.09.2007, discharged the accused for the offence under Section 308 IPC, finding prima facie no case under that provision. The case was accordingly sent back to this court for trial.
FIR No. 508/2006 State vs. Bunty page No. 2 of 8 Digitally signed by ravi ravi Date:
2026.04.23 18:10:38 +0530
4. PW-1 deposed on 02.11.2010 regarding MLC Ex. PW1/A. Cross- examination by not done by the accused. PW SI Ram Singh deposed on 08.08.2017 regarding registration of FIR 508/2006. Cross- examination was not conducted as the accused was PO.
5. By order dated 25.02.2026, summons were issued to Tara Chand, the prosecution witness and complainant, through the DCP concerned. The same were received back with the report that the prosecution witness/complainant was not found at the given address. The Ld. APP for the State requested issuance of Bailable Warrants (BWs) against the complainant. However, this Court, by order dated 23.04.2026, held that issuing further processes upon the complainant would not be of any utility as he does not reside at the given address, and accordingly dropped Tara Chand from the list of prosecution witnesses.
6. Consequently, this Court also held that, in absence of the testimony of the complainant, bringing on record the testimony of other formal witnesses would not be of any utility and the same was dispensed with. Since nothing incriminating came on record against the accused, the requirement of recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also dispensed with.
7. The Ld. APP fairly submitted that given the dropping of the complainant/PW Tara Chand from the list of prosecution witnesses and the dispensation of remaining formal witnesses, there is no incriminating evidence on record against the accused for the offence under Section 325 IPC. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution has failed to lead any credible or legally FIR No. 508/2006 State vs. Bunty page No. 3 of 8 Digitally signed by ravi ravi Date:
2026.04.23 18:10:44 +0530 admissible evidence to prove the charge under Section 325 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
8. The foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence in India is that the prosecution bears the burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt, and that burden never shifts to the accused. The Supreme Court in Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808, laid down the governing principle in the following terms:
"If two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted."
9. This principle was reiterated and fortified by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 , where it was held that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The entire edifice of the prosecution's case rests upon the testimony of Tara Chand, the complainant and sole injured witness, who was allegedly pushed from the bus by the accused. Without his testimony, the chain of causation i.e., the act of pushing, the identity of the person who pushed, and the resulting grievous injuries cannot be established.
10. The complainant has been dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses on account of being untraceable, and this Court has dispensed with the testimony of other formal witnesses in consequence. This development is of decisive legal significance. The Supreme Court, in Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P., AIR 1994 SC FIR No. 508/2006 State vs. Bunty page No. 4 of 8 Digitally signed by ravi ravi Date:
2026.04.23 18:10:50 +0530 1251, observed that when the most material witness whose testimony could establish the case has not been examined, an adverse inference must follow. The complainant Tara Chand is the most material witness in the present case. He is allegedly the victim, the person who was pushed from the bus, and the only person who can speak from personal knowledge to: (a) the act of pushing; (b) the identity of the person who pushed him; (c) the nature of injuries sustained; and (d) the circumstances under which the incident occurred. In his absence, the prosecution case is left without its very cornerstone.
11. The prosecution examined two formal witnesses Sh. S. Mehto (Medical Record Technician, RML Hospital) and SI Ram Singh (the FIR registering officer). While both have formally proved their respective documents (MLC and FIR), it must be carefully examined whether these documents, standing alone, are sufficient to prove the charge under Section 325 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
12. Section 325 IPC provides: "Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." For conviction under Section 325 IPC, the prosecution must prove: (a) that grievous hurt was caused; (b) that it was caused voluntarily; and (c) that it was caused by the accused.
13. The MLC documents the nature of injuries on the complainant's person. However, the MLC does not, and cannot, establish by whom the injuries were caused. The MLC merely records the medical findings as reported to the treating doctor. The Supreme Court in State FIR No. 508/2006 State vs. Bunty page No. 5 of 8 Digitally signed by ravi ravi Date:
2026.04.23 18:10:57 +0530 of Karnataka v. Yarappa Reddy, (1999) 8 SCC 715, cautioned against conviction based on mere formal or documentary evidence without substantive corroboration. The MLC cannot independently connect the accused to the act of causing injuries.
14. An FIR is not substantive evidence. It can, at best, be used for corroboration or contradiction of the maker, who is the complainant himself. In the absence of the complainant's testimony, the FIR cannot be used as substantive evidence of the facts stated therein. This settled legal position was authoritatively stated by the Supreme Court in Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 SC 501, wherein it was held:
"A first information report is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can be used to corroborate the evidence of its maker under Section 157 of the Evidence Act, or to contradict him under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, but it cannot be used as evidence of the facts stated therein."
15. Since the complainant has not been examined, the FIR cannot be relied upon as substantive evidence. Both formal documents, the MLC and the FIR, are therefore insufficient, standing alone, to prove the charge under Section 325 IPC.
16. Under Section 114, Illustration (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now mirrored under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), the Court may presume that evidence which could be, but is not, produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the party withholding it. In the present case, while the non-production of Tara Chand may not be attributed to wilful withholding but rather to his FIR No. 508/2006 State vs. Bunty page No. 6 of 8 Digitally signed by ravi ravi Date:
2026.04.23 18:11:05 +0530 being untraceable, the net legal consequence remains the same, the prosecution's case stands unproved.
17. The doctrine of benefit of doubt in criminal trials is not merely a procedural nicety, it is a reflection of the constitutional guarantee enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which protects the life and personal liberty of every person. Conviction of an innocent person is a far graver injustice than acquittal of a guilty one. The Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal, (1988) 4 SCC 302, held that where the evidence on record is not cogent, credible, and reliable enough to bring home the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and must be acquitted.
18. In the present case, the prosecution has utterly failed to lead any substantive evidence on record to connect the accused with the act of causing grievous hurt to Tara Chand. The charge under Section 325 IPC, therefore, cannot be sustained.
19. It would be remiss not to note that this case has been pending since 2006, a period of nearly twenty years. The accused has been attending the Court throughout this period. The Supreme Court, in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1360 , recognized that speedy justice is a fundamental right under Article 21. The protracted pendency of this case, resulting ultimately in the non-availability of the complainant and the consequent collapse of the prosecution's case, is itself a commentary on the systemic challenges that must be addressed.
FIR No. 508/2006 State vs. Bunty page No. 7 of 8
Digitally
signed by
ravi
ravi Date:
2026.04.23
18:11:11
+0530
20. In view of the above discussion the prosecution has utterly and completely failed to prove the charge under Section 325 IPC against the accused Bunty Singh S/o Sh. Nanak Chand beyond reasonable doubt. The sole injured witness and complainant, Tara Chand, was dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses, as he could not be served summons and was not found at the given address. In the absence of the testimony of the complainant, no other formal witness testimony could be of any utility, and the formal documentary evidence, namely, the MLC and the FIR, standing alone, cannot prove the guilt of the accused for the substantive offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt under Section 325 IPC. Nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused persons during the course of trial. The accused is accordingly entitled to the benefit of doubt, and it would be a travesty of justice to convict him in the absence of any reliable, admissible, substantive evidence.
21. In view of the foregoing discussion, the accused, Bunty Singh S/o Sh.
Nanak Chand, is hereby acquitted of the charge under Section 325 IPC, in exercise of powers under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C., as the prosecution has failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
22. A copy of this judgment be supplied to the accused free of cost as per Section 363 CrPC.
Digitally
signed by ravi
ravi Date:
2026.04.23
18:11:17
+0530
Announced in the court (Ravi)
on 23rd April, 2026 Judicial Magistrate First Class - 07
New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi FIR No. 508/2006 State vs. Bunty page No. 8 of 8