Delhi District Court
State vs Abhishek on 17 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHRUTI SARASWAT, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS-03, NORTH-EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
STATE VS. ABHISHEK & ANR.
DLNE020029832018
F.I.R. No.: 645/2017
Police Station: Khajuri Khas
State Vs. Abhishek @ Anr.
U/s 323/324/341/34 IPC
(a) Case ID number/CR No. : 2228/2018
(b) Date of commission of the offence : 15.10.2017
(c) The name of the complainant : Sh. Dinesh Kumar S/o Sh.
Amar Singh, R/o Village
Dayalpur Near Bus Stand,
Karawal Nagar Road, Delhi-94.
(d) The name of the accused, parentage (1) Abhishek S/o Pardeep Negi,
and residence R/o D2-/58B, Dayalpuri, Delhi.
(2) Pardeep Negi S/o Bagat
Singh, R/o D2-/58B, Dayalpuri,
Delhi.
(e) The offence complained of : Under Section 323/324/341/34
IPC
(f) Chargesheet filed on : 29.08.2018
(g) Charge/notice framed on : 22.11.2022
(h) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
(i) The final order : Acquittal
FIR No. 645/2017 State Vs. Abhishek & Anr. PS: Khajuri Khas Page no. 1 of 13
(j) The date of such order : 17.02.2026
(k) State represented by : Sh. Mohit, Ld. APP for State.
(l) Accused represented by : Sh. Krishna Dutt Thapliyal, Ld.
counsel for accused persons.
JUDGMENT
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 15.10.2017 at about 9:15 PM at Gali No.-D3, Dayalpur, Delhi, complainant went to his plot and he saw Abhishek was drinking liquor with his friends and when he tried to stop him, accused Abhishek alongwith his brother Akshay attacked and assaulted the complainant and they had beaten him due to which complainant sustained injury. He was taken to the hospital where his medical examination was done. Based on complaint filed by the complainant, the present FIR u/s 323/341/34 IPC was registered against the accused persons. Investigation was taken up by Investigating Officer and after completion of investigation, the present chargesheet was filed.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE COURT
2. After carrying out the investigation, charge sheet for the offence punishable u/s 323/324/341/34 IPC was filed on 29.08.2018. After taking cognizance, accused persons were summoned. After compliance of section 207 Cr. P.C, charge u/s 323/341/34 IPC was framed against accused persons Abhishek and Akshay to which they FIR No. 645/2017 State Vs. Abhishek & Anr. PS: Khajuri Khas Page no. 2 of 13 pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Vide order dated 22.11.2022, accused Pradeep was discharged by Ld. Predecessor.
DEPOSITION OF PROSECUTION'S WITNESSES
3. There are total four witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution for evidence, which are as follows.
4. PW1- Sh. Dinesh Kumar has deposed that on 15.10.2017, he saw Abhishek was drinking liquor alongwith his friends and when he tried to stop them, accused Abhishek and his brother Akshay attacked and assaulted him. The mother and father of accused incited their dog to attack him and he got injured. He alongwith his tauji went to police station and made a complaint Ex. PW1/A. His medical examination was conducted on 15.10.2017. IO prepared the site plan at his instance. He has correctly identified the accused persons.
In the cross-examination, PW1 has deposed that the time of incident was about 09:15 PM and the owner of plot was his Tauji. There was no watchman at the time of incident. The distance between the plot and house of accused is about 10-12 steps. There are many houses in the area where plot is situated. He went to plot just for walking after dinner. The distance between his house and plot is about 300-400 meters. When he reached at the plot and found Abhishek drinking with his friends, he tried to stop them to consume liquor at the plot of his tau, then Abhishek and his friends attached and assaulted him. He did not make any PCR call but he went to his tau's house which is situated nearby and thereafter, he FIR No. 645/2017 State Vs. Abhishek & Anr. PS: Khajuri Khas Page no. 3 of 13 went to police station alongwith his tau. He also went to police station on next day alongwith his tau. Police lodged FIR on the basis of his complaint on 16.10.2017. He got injured by dog bites at his chest. Public persons were present at the spot but complainant ran away. He does not know whether any eye-witness was there in the present case or not. No recovery was effected in his presence. IO has prepared the site plan during the investigation. Accused Abhishek alongwith his friends were drinking alcohol inside the plot. He had informed his tau Dharam Singh after the incident. He know accused Abhishek for about 8-10 years. Accused Abhishek and his friends attacked him when they saw him in the plot. He denied that he was drinking liquor in the said plot and when accused objected him, he made false complaint against accused. He had no previous enmity with the accused. He denied that he has been falsely implicated and no such incident as alleged has ever taken place. He was discharged on 15.09.2023.
5. PW-2-HC Nikesh has deposed that on 16.10.2017, duty officer handed over one rukka and copy of FIR to him and sent him to Gali no.02, D Block, Dayalpuri. He reached there and handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to ASI Surender. Thereafter, he returned back to PS and IO arrested the accused Abhishek and Pradeep. He correctly identified accused Abhishek.
In the cross-examination, PW2 has stated that he alongwith IO went to the house of accused persons and complainant was also present there. IO arrested both the accused Abhishek and Pradeep in PS. He did not sign the arrest memo. IO and he did not ask about the incident FIR No. 645/2017 State Vs. Abhishek & Anr. PS: Khajuri Khas Page no. 4 of 13 from the accused. He denied that he had never visited the spot and accused persons were not arrested in his presence that is why he has not signed any documents. He was discharged on 03.09.2024.
6. PW-3/Retd. ASI Surender Pal has deposed that on 15.10.2017, complainant Dinesh came to PS and lodged his complaint and he took him to the hospital for medical treatment and he recorded his statement and prepared rukka vide Ex. PW1/A. He went to spot with the complainant and prepared site plan Ex.PW3/A. He found the accused persons in the street and he interrogated them. Thereafter, he went to PS with them and arrested accused Pradeep and Abhishek and personally searched them vide memo Ex. PW3/B to Ex. PW3/E respectively. He arrested and personally searched accused Akshay vide memo Ex. PW3/F and Ex. PW3/G. He has correctly identified accused persons Abhishek and Akshay.
In his cross-examination, he deposed that complainant informed about the incident by visiting Police Station at about 10 PM with his Tauji. He deposed that nothing was recovered during investigation and no photographs of place of incident was collected by him. He further admitted that he did not collect the CCTV footage of CCTV camera installed at main road near the spot. He admitted that the plot was in a thickly populated area, however, no public witness was cited in the chargesheet. Since no alcohol bottles were found at the spot, therefore no kalandra was prepared under Section 40A Delhi Excise Act. No PCR call was made by the complainant.
He was cross examined and discharged on 08.11.2024.
FIR No. 645/2017 State Vs. Abhishek & Anr. PS: Khajuri Khas Page no. 5 of 13
7. PW-4 Dr. Shalabh Dass has deposed that the MLC no.11133/2017 dated 15.10.2017 Ex. PW4/A was prepared by him. The patient namely Dinesh Kumar aged about 24 years was brought by ASI Surender Pal with alleged history of physical assault. As per the MLC, abrasion was found over left fore arm and right knee. Patient also had history of dog bites over chest right side, left side chest and right side of scapula and over left hip. Patient was given pain medication and anti rabies vaccination. The nature of injuries are sharp due to dog bite and simple in nature.
In the cross-examination, he has stated that what ever is written in the MLC in the history of assault it is as per saying of Dinesh Kumar. The address of Dinesh Kumar as mentioned in the MLC was not verified by him on that day. The address is written near bus stand. Neither any FIR nor any DD entry of alleged incident was mentioned to him by ASI Surender Pal who brought the patient in the hospital. He has further stated that as per his observation the dog bites were superficial. There was no active bleeding and thus, he did not mention the same in the MLC. The abrasion were fresh but I did not mention in the MLC. No particulars of abrasion were mention by him in the MLC except the location of injuries. He cannot tell the abrasion mentioned in the MLC were by human force or animal force. The anti rabies is prescribed according to the degree of bite. As per the MLC, the first dose of injection ARV was administered to the patient and he was advised the subsequent does of ARV. He further stated that the above said treatment was given at the instance of patient, Dinesh Kumar. As per his FIR No. 645/2017 State Vs. Abhishek & Anr. PS: Khajuri Khas Page no. 6 of 13 observation, there was no gravity in assault and it was simple injury. The said treatment was given by him. He was discharged on 05.04.2025.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CR.PC
8. After closing of evidence, vide order dated 26.07.2025, statements of accused persons were recorded and in which they claimed innocence and stated that he was falsely implicated. The accused persons opted not to lead any defence evidence.
ARGUMENTS
9. I have considered arguments advanced by Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused and have perused the entire material available on record carefully.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND DECISION
10. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that the Prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond all reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent, and convincing evidence. It is also settled that primary burden of proof for proving offence in a criminal trial rest on the shoulders of the Prosecution. It must be seen whether the prosecution had been able to establish the actus reus as well as the mens rea of the accused in the present case and that the case against the accused is established beyond all reasonable doubts.
11. The accused is charged for the offence under section 323/341/34 IPC, which read as follows:
FIR No. 645/2017 State Vs. Abhishek & Anr. PS: Khajuri Khas Page no. 7 of 13 Section 323:- Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt: Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 341:- Punishment for wrongful restraint: Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. Section 34:- Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention: When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
12. To prove the guilt of the accused for the offences they are charged with in the present matter, it is incumbent upon the prosecution of prove the following facts:
That the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained the complainant; and That the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily caused simple injuries to the complainant.
13. It has been held in judgment tilted as Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2012 SC 3157, Hon'ble HC has held that:-
"the 'sterling witness' should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the FIR No. 645/2017 State Vs. Abhishek & Anr. PS: Khajuri Khas Page no. 8 of 13 quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulnesses of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end namely, at the time when the witness make the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross examination of any length and howsoever, strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the person involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness."
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as "Vadivelu Thevar Vs. The State of Madras, 1957 SCR 981", has observed that there are three types of witnesses i.e., (a) Wholly reliable; (b) Wholly unreliable and (c) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
15. When the witness is wholly reliable, the Court should not have any difficulty in as much as conviction or acquittal could be based FIR No. 645/2017 State Vs. Abhishek & Anr. PS: Khajuri Khas Page no. 9 of 13 on the testimony of such single witness. Equally, if, the Court finds that the witness is wholly unreliable, there would be no difficulty in as much as neither conviction nor acquittal can be based on the testimony of such witness. It is only in the third category of witnesses that the Court has to circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial
16. As far as the charges leveled against the accused persons are concerned, only the complainant has been examined by the Prosecution whose testimony is marred with multiple inconsistencies. In his complaint, he has stated that Abhishek and his brother Akshay attacked him. However, in his testimony, he has deposed that Akshay and his friends attacked him, which amounts to a material contradiction. Further, after the incident, rather than calling the PCR, complainant went to the house of his Tau and then went to the Police station.
17. Further, prosecution has not brought any public witness to corroborate their statement. In the present case, both the complainant and the IO has deposed that the area is a populated one and public witnesses were there. Still, no public witness was brought to corroborate the testimony of complainant. The Prosecution has not even examined Tau of the complainant who could corroborate the testimony of the complainant. Although, the MLC of the complainant establishes that he has suffered simple injuries including superficial dog bites, however, the same does not establish that the same was inflicted by the accused persons or the manner in which the offence was committed.
FIR No. 645/2017 State Vs. Abhishek & Anr. PS: Khajuri Khas Page no. 10 of 13
18. Also, it has been admitted that there was a CCTV footage in the vicinity of the spot but no efforts has been made by the IO to recover the same. Furthermore, DD was recorded after the MLC of the complainant got conducted. The delay in recording the rukka by the DO, though not material in itself, does not help the case of prosecution. IO has deposed that the site plan was made at the instance of the complainant, however the same does not bear the signatures of the complainant. The present case is a fit case of shoddy and deficient investigation conducted by the police and an example of serious lapse on the part of the investigative agencies, which had casted a shadow on the whole story of Prosecution.
19. As already discussed, complainant has contradicted himself on material points. The complainant could not withstand the litmus test of cross-examination as his testimony was punctured at various material points, specifically on the identity of the assailants. In such eventuality, it has to be held that the guilt of the accused persons could not be proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
20. It appears also relevant to acknowledge and appreciate the fact that criminal conviction entails enigmatic and stigmatic experiences and exposures for the accused and thus it becomes of paramount importance to demand evidence of unimpeachable character and of unambiguous nature. The case of the prosecution, carrying several material infirmities, does not inspire the confidence of the court and thus FIR No. 645/2017 State Vs. Abhishek & Anr. PS: Khajuri Khas Page no. 11 of 13 the same can not be relied upon. From the above discussion and findings, in my considered view, accused persons deserve to be given benefit of doubt.
21. It is also settled law that accused has to only proboblize the defense and he is presumed to be innocent, till he is proved to be guilty. Suspicion, however, strong can never take place of proof. There is indeed a long distance between accused " May have committed the offence" and "Must have committed the offence", which must be traversed by the prosecution by adducing reliable evidence.
22. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in a case of "Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1997(3) Crime 55"
as under:-
"In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused."
23. As the consequence to the above-said discussions, this court has come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the FIR No. 645/2017 State Vs. Abhishek & Anr. PS: Khajuri Khas Page no. 12 of 13 accused (1) Abhishek s/o Pradeep and (2) Akshay s/o Pradeep are acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 323/ 341/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
24. Accused persons shall furnish personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs.5000/- with one surety of like amount as per the mandate of Section 437A Cr.PC upon which previous bonds shall be cancelled and previous surety shall be discharged.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signedCopy of the Judgment be given to accusedby free of cost.
SHRUTI
SARASWAT
SHRUTI
Announced in the open court SARASWAT Date:
2026.02.17
on 17.02.2026 17:08:26
+0530
(Shruti Saraswat)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-03,
North-East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 645/2017 State Vs. Abhishek & Anr. PS: Khajuri Khas Page no. 13 of 13