Delhi District Court
State vs Bhupender Malik on 22 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SEEMA NIRMAL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS -09,
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT / SAKET COURTS, DELHI
Cr. CASES 6585/2018
STATE Vs. BHUPENDER MALIK
FIR NO. 186/2017
PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR
JUDGMENT
a. CNR NO. DLSE020320202018
b. Name of the Mr. Sanjay Singh
Complainant S/o Sh. Late Sh. Kapil Dev Singh
c. Name of the accused & Bhupender Malik
his parentage and S/o Sh. Randeep Singh
address R/o M-330, Sewa Nagar, K.M Pur,
New Delhi
d. Offence charged 341/323/506(II)/34 IPC
e. Date of commission of 05.07.2017
offence
f. Date of Institution 03.10.2018
g. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
h. Order Reserved on 04.06.2025
i. Date of Pronouncement 22.07.2025
j. Final Order Acquitted
Cr. CASES 6585/2018 PAGE 1 OF 12
STATE Vs. BHUPENDER MALIK
FIR NO. 186/2017
PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.22
16:49:51 +0530
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused in person with Ld. counsel Sh. Ram Kumar and Mr. Vimal Singh.
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 05.07.2017, at about 7.30 pm, at Sewa Nagar near L-447, KM Pur, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Kotla Mubarakpur, accused Bhupender Malik along with some other unknown persons, in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily restrained the complainant Sanjay Singh from proceeding in a particular direction and voluntarily caused simple hurt to him and also threatened the complainant to kill him and thereby accused committed offences punishable u/s 341/323/506(II)/34 IPC.
2. This case was registered on the statement of complainant Sanjay Singh who stated that on the day of incident i.e. 05.07.2017, in between 7.00 pm-7.30 pm, near L-447, he was going towards his home and in the meantime, accused Bhupender Malik who is husband of Ms. Seema Malik, Counselor Ward No. S-58 by saying " o tujhe sunai nahi deta, mai tujhe aawaz deta hun, ruk tu". On this, complainant went there, however, accused caught hold his neck and gave 2-3 slaps and also called 4-5 persons standing along with him and stated "maaro saale ko, aaj isko sabak sikha dena" and continuously used abusive words and stated "mai tujhe roz bulata hun, aur tu mujhe Cr. CASES 6585/2018 PAGE 2 OF 12 STATE Vs. BHUPENDER MALIK FIR NO. 186/2017 Digitally signed by SEEMA SEEMA NIRMAL PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.22 16:50:00 +0530 ansuna kar deta hai, teri ye aukat" and stated to the persons standing with him " aaj saale ko jaan se maar denge". Immediately after this, the persons standing with accused started beating the complainant with danda, stone, fist and leg blows and also tried to press his neck. The public persons standing there intervened and thereafter he escaped from there and called at 100 number. So, on the basis of statement of complainant, present case FIR was registered, accused Bhupender Malik was bound down. During the course of investigation. After completion of investigation, final report in the form of charge sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 323/341/506 IPC was forwarded to the Court against the accused persons for trial.
3. After taking cognizance of the offences by the court, the accused was summoned. Pursuant to his appearance, in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., copy of charge sheet was supplied to him. Subsequently, after perusal of the judicial file and hearing the parties, a prima facie case against the accused for commission of offences punishable u/s 341/323/506(II)/34 IPC was found to be made out. Accordingly, on 17.05.2019, formal charge of accusation for commission of offences u/s 341/323/506(II)/34 IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was posted for Prosecution Evidence.
4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, examined the following Cr. CASES 6585/2018 PAGE 3 OF 12 STATE Vs. BHUPENDER MALIK FIR NO. 186/2017 Digitally signed PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR SEEMA by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL 16:50:04 Date: 2025.07.22 +0530 witnesses; viz.
i) PW-1 Sanjay Singh (complainant),
ii) PW2 HC Gopal (police witness),
iii) PW-3 SI Ravi Yadav (IO)
.
5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, also relied upon the following documents:
1) complaint of complainant as Ex. PW1/A,
2) Rukka as Ex. PW3/A,
3) Notice u/s 41A Cr.P.C. as Ex. PW3/B,
6. In addition to the above-mentioned witnesses, the accused also admitted genuineness of MLC as well as registration of FIR no. 186/17, DD No. 46A dated 05.07.2017, PS KM Pur as Ex.P1, Ex. P2 & Ex. P3 respectively, in terms of Section 294 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 23.10.2019, hence, the said witnesses were dropped on the submissions of Ld. APP for State.
7. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all incriminating circumstances led against him during the trial by the prosecution witnesses were put to him, affording him an opportunity to give his explanation, if any. Accused pleaded innocence and claimed that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. However, accused preferred to lead defence evidence and examined three witnesses in his defence i.e. accused himself as DW1, Mahesh Kumar as DW2 and Jaitentra Kumar Dubey as DW3. Thereafter, vide separate statement of Cr. CASES 6585/2018 PAGE 4 OF 12 STATE Vs. BHUPENDER MALIK FIR NO. 186/2017 SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.22 16:50:08 +0530 accused recorded on 14.05.2025, DE was closed. Thereafter, the matter was posted for final arguments.
8. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. counsel for the accused and gone through the case file carefully and minutely. After hearing rival contentions and after appreciation of evidence on file, I am of the considered view that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts and the arguments advanced by the ld. APP for the state cannot be accepted for the reasons given below.
9. The material witness of the prosecution is the complainant Sanjay Singh on whose complaint the present case has been registered against the accused. He has been examined as PW-1. His complaint is Ex.PW-1/A. The MLC of the complainant/injured has already been admitted by the accused vide his separate recorded statement dated 23.10.2019 which is Ex.P-1. In his examination in chief, the complainant has deposed on the lines of his complaint Ex.PW-1/A. In his cross-examination he has clearly stated that he became unconscious as the accused had pressed his neck after which he became unconscious. But, in the MLC Ex.P-1, it is clearly mentioned that there was no history of unconsciousness. He has further stated that his MLC was conducted at around 08:30 PM. As per complaint Ex.PW-1/A, the incident happened around 07:00-07:30 PM. He has also stated in his cross-examination that the hospital is around 500 meters from the place of occurrence. He has also stated that it is Cr. CASES 6585/2018 PAGE 5 OF 12 STATE Vs. BHUPENDER MALIK Digitally signed FIR NO. 186/2017 SEEMA by SEEMA NIRMAL PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.22 16:50:14 +0530 possible that his MLC was conducted at 11:00 PM. However, as per MLC Ex.P-1, it is clearly mentioned that time of arrival of the complainant in the hospital is 11:20 PM. Thus, there is clear contradiction in the testimony of the complainant as discussed above. Further, as discussed above, the hospital is just 500 meters from the place of occurrence and there is no explanation as to why the complainant took such a long time of around four hours to reach the hospital. Further, there was only abrasion over right shin and left index finger of the complainant and both these injuries are not serious so as to stop the complainant to reach the hospital. Further, the complainant has stated in his cross-examination that he had received injuries on his waist, neck, back and other body parts whereas as per MLC Ex.P-1 there was only abrasion over right shin and left index finger of the complainant. There were no injuries on any other body part of the complainant. Meaning thereby, the ocular version of the complainant is not corroborated by medical evidence. There are clear contradictions in the testimony of the complainant and the MLC Ex.P-1. All of this makes the version of the complainant doubtful.
10. Further, the injured/complainant PW-1 Sanjay Singh has deposed in his examination in chief that 4-5 persons were also present on the spot. However, none of those persons have been examined by the prosecution. Their names have not even been mentioned in the list of witnesses. Name of only one person namely Ram Naresh has been mentioned in the list of witnesses but he has not been examined as is name has been dropped from the list of witnesses and as such best Cr. CASES 6585/2018 PAGE 6 OF 12 STATE Vs. BHUPENDER MALIK Digitally signed FIR NO. 186/2017 SEEMA by SEEMA NIRMAL PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.22 16:50:17 +0530 witnesses have been withheld by the prosecution and benefit of the same shall go to the accused. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Amit Kantiwal v. Mukesh Mittal (Punjab And Haryana) CRM-A No.863-MA of 2014 (O&M). D/d. 30.03.2015 and Digamber Vaishnav Vs. state of Chhatisgarh, AIR 2019 SC 1377.
11. Therefore, from the above discussion, it is clear that the case of the prosecution solely rests on the testimony of a solitary witness namely Sanjay Singh, complainant. There is no other eye witness of the present case. Accordingly, the accused can not be convicted on the sole testimony of the complainant especially when the same suffers from contradictions and inconsistencies as discussed above. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Laxman Chandar Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra (Bombay), 2016 (1) AIR Bom.R (Cri) 751, wherein it has been held as follows:-
"15. Except Taibai, there was no other witness to the occurrence. The other witnesses i.e. PW No.1 - Laxman Mane, PW 3 - Kashinath Borse, PW 4 - Bhimabai had not witnessed the incident and the alleged assault. The evidence of Kashinath (PW 3) only shows that he had heard exchange of words between the deceased Lahanu and Chander. Bhimabai (PW4) was declared as hostile and questions in the nature of cross- examination were permitted to be put to her. However, nothing which would advance the prosecution version could be elicited from her even pursuant to such questioning and she Cr. CASES 6585/2018 PAGE 7 OF 12 STATE Vs. BHUPENDER MALIK FIR NO. 186/2017 SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL 16:50:21 +0530 Date: 2025.07.22 PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR categorically denied having seen the appellant giving a dig by elblow to deceased Lahanu. When the criminal act attributed to the appellant, was sought to be established by the testimony of a solitary witness it was absolutely necessary for the court to arrive at a satisfaction that such solitary witness is 'wholly reliable'. For basing a conviction on the testimony of a solitary witness - without any corroboration - the Court must be satisfied that such witness is 'wholly reliable'. In the instant case, there were a number of infirmities and contradictions in the version of Taibai and these infirmities were noticed and recorded by the learned Sessions Judge himself. Apart from these infirmities and contradictory versions, what cannot be overlooked is that the version of assaulting another by giving him a blow by the elbow, itself is an abnormal happening. Why would the person not give a straight and normal blow, if he wanted to hit another and would instead only give a nudge or dig by elbow, was not considered by the learned Sessions Judge. Somebody intending to cause physical hurt to a person, giving such person only a nudge, is quite unheard of. Thus, this improbability coupled with the other infirmities in the evidence of Taibai, and the absence of any corroboration whatsoever to her claim, should have led the learned Sessions Judge to doubt the assertion of Taibai to the effect that the appellant had hit her husband by the elbow."
12. Further, it is well settled that suspicion, however strong, Cr. CASES 6585/2018 PAGE 8 OF 12 STATE Vs. BHUPENDER MALIK FIR NO. 186/2017 PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.22 16:50:25 +0530 cannot take the place of proof. Clear and unimpeachable evidence is necessary to convict a person. This court finds that such evidence is absent in this case. Reliance in this regard can be placed on 'Anil s/o Shamrao Sute & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2013(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 541'.
13. Further, the accused Bhupender Malik while appearing as DW-1 clearly deposed that the accused has filed the present case against him due to political rivalry. The complainant has also stated in his cross-examination that he had contested counsellor election independently in the year 2012. Admittedly, wife of the accused is also pursuing her political career. Both of them belong to the same locality. Thus, in view of the above discussion, it seems to be the counterblast of the same.
14. Further, DW-3 Jaitendra Kumar Dubey clearly stated in his cross-examination that on dated 05.07.2017 i.e. the day of occurrence, accused was present with him outside a park in front of house no.L-
441. No evidence has been led by the prosecution against the said fact. Nothing favourable to the prosecution could be extracted from his further cross-examination. Thus, in the above circumstances, the genesis of the occurrence also does not appear to be natural. Reliance in this regard is placed on Ayodhya Singh v. State of Bihar, (SC) Criminal Appeal Nos. 392393 of 1998. D/d. 3.2.2005.
15. The accused has been further charge sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC. For Cr. CASES 6585/2018 PAGE 9 OF 12 STATE Vs. BHUPENDER MALIK FIR NO. 186/2017 Digitally signed SEEMA by SEEMA NIRMAL PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.22 16:50:33 +0530 reference, Section 341 of IPC is hereby reproduced as under:
341.-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.
16. "Wrongful Restraint" has been defined under Section 339 of IPC. Therefore, the essential ingredients of Section 341 of IPC are that: (1)there was some voluntary obstruction caused; (2) the obstruction was such as to prevent any person from proceeding in any direction;
(3)the person obstructed had a right to proceed in that direction.
17. However, in Keki Hormusji Gharda vs Mehervan (2009) 6 SCC 475, it was held that the word 'voluntarily' in section 339 of IPC connotes that obstruction should be direct. The obstruction must be a restriction on normal movement of a person. It should be physical one. But there is no evidence to this effect on the file. Moreover, in Rupan Deol Bajaj vs K.P.S. Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194, it was held that the only allegation relating to the wrongful restraint is that the accused stood in front of the appellant in such a manner that she had to move backward. From such act alone it can not be said that he wrongfully restrained her within the meaning of Section 339 of IPC to make him liable under Section 341 of IPC.
18. No independent witness joined: As per the version of the prosecution/official witnesses, no independent witness was joined in Cr. CASES 6585/2018 PAGE 10 OF 12 STATE Vs. BHUPENDER MALIK Digitally signed FIR NO. 186/2017 SEEMA by SEEMA NIRMAL PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.22 16:50:41 +0530 the investigation in spite of availability. So, it creates doubt on the prosecution story. In Jeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1998(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 274, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that:
"5. In the opinion of this Court, this revision should succeed on the short ground that there was a legal infirmity in the investigation. It is the case of the prosecution that HC Lekh Raj received the secret information when he was at a public place. The police party was going on patrol. In these circumstances it was mandatory on the part of the Head Constable to associate the independent witness when he could associate it without any difficulty or inconvenience. There is no cogent evidence why the independent witness has not been associated. In these circumstances, to base the conviction of the petitioner solely relying upon the statements of two police officials would be unfair..."
19. No evidence regarding ingredients of threat: The law is quite explicit that mere empty threats do not constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. The threats issued only make out the offence under section 506 only when the said threats cause alarm to the person to whom it are issued. There is no mention that the said threats caused alarm to the complainant or to any other person. In the absence of any evidence or deposition with regard to the alarm to the victim consequent to the alleged threats the offence under Section 506 of IPC is not constituted. Furthermore, administration of a threat Cr. CASES 6585/2018 PAGE 11 OF 12 STATE Vs. BHUPENDER MALIK FIR NO. 186/2017 Digitally signed SEEMA by SEEMA NIRMAL PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR NIRMAL 16:51:19 Date: 2025.07.22 +0530 hedged by certain conditions does not bring the case within the mischief of Section 506 IPC. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Sita Ram Vs. State, 1974 P.L.R. 421; Usha Bala Vs. State of Punjab, 2002(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 445; and Surinder Suri Vs. State of Haryana, 1996(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 701.
20. So, considering the entire evidence brought on record, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused committed the alleged offences. In the light of discussion made above, this court is of the considered view that the evidence led by the prosecution is highly insufficient and discrepant on the material aspects of the case. It is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove its case against the accused present in the court beyond the reasonable doubts. In the instant case, prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts and so he is entitled to benefit of doubt.
21. Accordingly, by giving benefit of doubt to the accused, he is acquitted of the charges framed upon him in this case. Case property, if any, be disposed of as per rules after expiry of period of appeal/revision. SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL Announced in the Open (SEEMANIRMAL) NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.22 16:51:26 +0530 Court on 22.07.2025 JMFC-09/ SED/ Saket Courts, New Delhi/ 22.07.2025 It is certified by me that this judgment contains 12 pages and each page is digitally signed by me. SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL Date: 2025.07.22 (SEEMA NIRMAL) 16:51:30 +0530 JMFC-09/ SED/ Saket Courts, New Delhi/22.07.2025 Cr. CASES 6585/2018 PAGE 12 OF 12 STATE Vs. BHUPENDER MALIK FIR NO. 186/2017 PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR