Delhi District Court
State vs Ali Javed on 8 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
FIRST CLASS-08, SAKET COURTS, DELHI
Presided over by- Mr. Bhavaya Karhail, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 98072/16
FIR No. -: 666/2013
Police Station -: Jamia Nagar
Section(s) -: 186/332/353/174A IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
ALI JAVED
S/o Mr. Akbar Abbas
R/o H. No. H-46, Abul Fazal Enclave II,
Okhla, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi.
P. Add.: H. No. 455,
Village Post Sankhi, Tehsil,
Anoop Shehar, Distt. Bulandsher, U.P.
... Accused
1. Name of Complainant :- Ct. Rohtash
2. Name of Accused Person :- Ali Javed
3. Offence complained of or :- 186/332/353/174A IPC
proved
4. Plea of Accused Person :- NOT GUILTY
5. Date of Commission of offence :- 13.12.2013
6. Date of Filing of case :- 03.12.2016
7. Date of Pronouncement :- 08.01.2026
8. Final Order :- Acquittal u/s
186/332/353 IPC.
Conviction u/s 174A
IPC.
BHAVAYA Digitally signed by
BHAVAYA KARHAIL
KARHAIL Date: 2026.01.08
16:04:00 +0500
FIR No. 666/2013 State v. Ali Javed Page 1 of 17
JUDGMENT
1. Present FIR got registered on the basis of statement of Ct. Rohtash No. 3314/SE, who claimed that on 13.12.2013, when he alongwith HC Ranvir Singh were on patrolling duty and had reached opposite Nai Basti boundary wall, they saw one motorcycle which was not locked. After failing to get any information regarding the owner of said bike, Ct. Rohtash started dragging the motorcycle towards the police station. He claims that at the same time, he received a phone call which he took after after parking the bike. In the meantime, one person tried to take away the bike towards Nai Basti. The person was stopped and when he was asked to show documents of the motorcycle, the said person started abusing and cursing him and further started physically assaulting him. On the abovesaid complaint, FIR u/s 186/353/332 IPC was registered.
2. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). Relevant record was collected. Final report under section 173 CrPC, was prepared against the abovenamed Accused and challan was presented in the court u/s 186/353/332 IPC. After taking cognizance of the offence, the Accused was summoned to face trial.
Digitally signed byBHAVAYA BHAVAYA KARHAIL KARHAIL Date: 2026.01.08 16:04:05 +0500 FIR No. 666/2013 State v. Ali Javed Page 2 of 17
3. On their appearance, a copy of chargesheet was supplied to him in terms of section 207 of CrPC. On finding a prima facie case against the Accused, charge under section was framed agaisnt the Accused persons on 11.05.2017 for the offences u/s 186/332/353/174A IPC, to which the Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial for the offence u/s 186/332/353 IPC, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the Accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
ORAL EVIDENCE PW1 :- Ct. Rohtash (Complainant in the present case) PW2 :- Bijender (witness in the present case) PW3 :- Yadram (witness in the present case) PW4 :- HC Arvind (police witness in the present case) PW5 :- SI Manbir Singh Hooda (police witness in the present case) PW6 :- Insp. Umesh Yadav (2nd IO in the present case) PW7 :- SI Brahm Prakash (IO in the present case) PW8 :- Dr. Abdur Rehman (witness in the present case) PW8A :- HC Sandeep (police witness in the present case) PW9 :- Retd. SI Liyakat Ali (police witness in the present case) Digitally signed by BHAVAYA BHAVAYA KARHAIL KARHAIL Date: 2026.01.08 16:04:08 +0500 FIR No. 666/2013 State v. Ali Javed Page 3 of 17 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/A :- Complaint. Ex. PW1/B :- Arrest memo. Ex. PW1/C :- Personal search memo.
Ex. P-1 :- Photographs of motor cycle and its (Colly) negatives. Ex. P-2 :- Torn uniform of PW1 and name place of (Colly) PW1.
Ex. PW5/A :- Seizure memo of uniform of Ct. Rohtash. Ex. PW5/B :- Seizure memo of motor cycle.
Ex. S-1 :- Motorcycle. Ex. PW8/A :- Authority letter. Ex. PW8/B :- MLC No. 328. Ex. PW8/A :- MLC No. 329.
Ex. PW9/A :- Pasted copy of process u/s 82 CrPC. (Colly)
5. PW-1/Ct. Rohtash deposed that on 13.12.2013 he was posted as Constable at PS Jamia Nagar. On that day, PW1 along with HC Manvir were on patrolling duty in the beat area Boundary Wall Opposite Nai Basti. PW1 saw that one bike bearing no. DL3SBE 5972 was standing in lavaris condition. PW1 took that bike to deposit the same in maalkhana. PW1 started to run towards PS. In between someone made a call at his mobile. PW1 stationed the bike in the side and started to hear the phone. In between one person came from back side and swiftly took the bike and started to go. By running swiftly, apprehended that person and asked him why he took this bike, he responded that PW1 was the owner of that motorcycle. PW1 asked him to show the RC of this bike but he refused to show the RC. He started to Digitally signed by BHAVAYA BHAVAYA KARHAIL KARHAIL Date: 2026.01.08 16:04:12 +0500 FIR No. 666/2013 State v. Ali Javed Page 4 of 17 argue with PW1 and told him how he to take his motorcycle. On this, he started to beat me and hit fist blows on his face. In between, many persons gathered there and HC Manvir also reached at the spot. Accused took pebble from the spot and hit himself with that pebble for 3-4 times and told PW1 that he will falsely implicate him by hitting myself and got removed his uniform. alongwith HC Manvir and public persons caught hold that person, namely, Ali Jabbar. In tussle, accused torn four buttons, pocket of his uniform. Thereafter, SI Om Pal Singh came to the spot and recorded his statement which is Ex. PW1/A. IO/SI Om Pal Singh got medically examined PW1. Thereafter, arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide memos Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C. PW1 correctly identified the accused. Photographs of motorcycle alongwith its negatives were correctly identified by PW1, which are Ex. P-1 (colly). Torn uniform of PW1, name plate of PW1 were correctly identified by PW1. Same is Ex. P-2(Coly).
6. PW-2/Sh. Bijender deposed that he had no knowledge about the present case. Summons of the present case have been sent to his address by some person in order to harass PW2. Police never investigated PW2 in this case.
7. PW-3/Sh. Yadram deposed that he did not remember the exact date, month or year. However, the incident in question took place around 2-3 years back in the afternoon. PW3 was sleeping in his house at that time. PW3 suddenly heard commotion and he went towards the spot i.e. Boundary of UP Digitally signed by BHAVAYA BHAVAYA KARHAIL KARHAIL Date: 2026.01.08 16:04:16 +0500 FIR No. 666/2013 State v. Ali Javed Page 5 of 17 Government on plot on which some project was going on in front of his house. PW3 saw that crowd had gathered there. PW3 saw that accused and one police official namely Rohtash were fighting. Accused was bleeding. Thereafter accused left the spot. Accused was correctly identified by PW3.
8. PW-4/HC Arvind deposed that on 13.12.2013, he was posted PS Jamia Nagar as Ct. On that day PW4 was on emergency duty and his duty hours were from 8am to 8pm. At about 4 pm SI Om Pal received a call regarding quarrel at Nai Basti opp. Boundary wall. Thereafter, PW4 along with SI Om Pal went to the spot where Ct. Rohtash and HC Manbir met them and one person named Ali Javed was produced before them. SI Om Pal recorded statement of Ct. Rohtash as he was injured. IO/ SI Om Pal told HC Manbir to take injured/ Ct. Rohtash to Alshifa Hospital. After injured/ Ct. Rohtash reached the spot after his medical, IO handed over rukka to me for registration of FIR. PW4 took the same to the PS and got the present FIR registered. PW4 returned to the spot with copy of FIR and rukka and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to IO, IO then completed some paper work. Accused was correctly identified by PW4.
9. PW-5/SI Manbir Singh Hooda deposed that on 13.12.2013, he was posted in PS Jamia Nagar as Head Constable. PW-5 along with Ct. Rohtas went to area patrolling in beat No.9, Abul Fazal Enclave. When they reached near irrigation department boundary wall they found that one motorcycle bearing registration No. DL3SBE5972 red colour CBZ was lying in BHAVAYA Digitally signed by BHAVAYA KARHAIL KARHAIL Date: 2026.01.08 16:04:21 +0500 FIR No. 666/2013 State v. Ali Javed Page 6 of 17 unlock position. They enquired from the neighbours about the said motorcycle, however, could not found any satisfactory answer. Therefore Ct. Rohtas took the aforesaid motorcycle to the PS and PW-5 went towards Nayi Basti area for patrolling. At about 03:45 PM when he reached boundary wall near Nayi Basti PW-5 found that public persons were present there, and PW-5 also saw that the public persons were quarreling with ct. Rohtas. One of the public persons who was quareeling with ct. Rohtas, picked one stone and hit himself on his head and stated that he would falsely implicate in a case and also told "teri wardi utarwa dunga". PW-5 apprehended the said public person with the help of public persons present there. Someone called at 100 number. SI Om Pal reached at the spot and recorded the statement of Ct. Rohtas and also got conducted the medical examination of Ct. Rohtas in Alshifa hospital. SI Om Pal seized the uniform of Ct. Rohtas vide seizure memo Ex. PWS/A and also seized the aforesaid motorcycle vide memo Ex. PWS/B. SI Om Pal arrested the accused Ali Javed vide memo Ex. PW1/B and also conducted personal search memo already Ex. PW1/C. The photograph of aforesaid motorcycle Ex.Pl (colly) was correctly identified by PW-5. The aforesaid motorcycle is Ex. S1.
10. PW-6/Insp. Umesh Yadav deposed that he was posted at PS-Jamia Nagar on 16.10.2014. At that time PW6 was marked the investigation of the present case. PW6 discussed the file with the SHO and examined the complainant, however, PW6 did not record any statement of the complainant as it was already BHAVAYA Digitally signed by BHAVAYA KARHAIL KARHAIL Date: 2026.01.08 16:04:25 +0500 FIR No. 666/2013 State v. Ali Javed Page 7 of 17 recorded by the previous IO. PW6 was posted out of the PS on 21.11.14 and the case was marked to some other IO. No further investigation was done by PW6.
11. PW-7/SI-Brahm Prakash deposed that he was posted at PS-Jamia Nagar on 15.02.15 as SI. At that time PW7 was marked the investigation of the present case. PW7 obtained the permission u/s 195 Cr PC. After obtaining the permission, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed in the court.
12. PW-8/Dr. Abdur Rehman deposed that he had been empowered vide authority letter dated 16.11.2023 to depose in this case. Same is Ex. PW8/A. Dr. Shazia has resigned from Alshifa Multi Speciality Hospital and PW8 am authorized to depose on her behalf with regard to MLC No. 328 and 329 dated 13.12.2013 to identify writing and signature of Dr. Shazia. Signature of Dr. Shazia are present on both MLCs bearing no. 328 and 329. It is identified as Ex. PW8/B and Ex. PW8/C respectively. PW8 had worked with Dr. Shazia in course of his duties and he had seen her sign and write many documents. Hence, PW8 is competent to identify her handwriting and signature.
13. PW-8A/HC Sandeep deposed that the main process with regards to execution of proceedings after the declaration of the accused as an absconder was carried out by ASI Liyakat Ali (now retired). PW-8A was handed over the task of preparation of supplementary charge-sheet. On verifying the proceedings that accused has been declared as an absconder, PW-8A prepared a supplementary charge-sheet requesting the court to add section BHAVAYA Digitally signed by BHAVAYA KARHAIL KARHAIL Date: 2026.01.08 16:04:29 +0500 FIR No. 666/2013 State v. Ali Javed Page 8 of 17 174A IPC alongwith the sections of the main charge-sheet. PW-8A filed the supplementary charge-sheet before this Hon'ble Court.
14. PW-9/Retd. SI Liyakat Ali deposed that he was posted as SI at PS Jamia Nagar. PW-9 went to execute the process u/s 82 CrPC against accused Ali Javed S/o Akbar Abbas R/o H. No. H-46, Abul Fazal Enclave, Part I, Okhla Jamia Nagar, New Delhi which was marked to PW-9 and the same was executed by him on 06.01.2022. However, the accused was not traceable at the said address. PW-9 met one person namely Sabir there who told him that accused and his family had gone to their native village. Thereafter, PW-9 had pasted one copy of the process u/s 82 CrPC at the said address. PW-9 also pasted another copy of the said process at the notice board of court and picture of the said pasting are Ex. PW9/A (Colly). PW-9 had also made a proclamation in the neighbourhood of the address of the accused by beat of drums and report of the same is Ex. CW1/A and his report is correct. His affidavit regarding the same is Ex. CW/B. PW-9 also prepared a form which is Ex. PW9/B. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
15. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence, in order to allow the Accused to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of Accused was recorded without oath on 14.10.2025 under Section 313 CrPC in which he stated that he is innocent, and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused further deposed BHAVAYA Digitally signed by BHAVAYA KARHAIL KARHAIL Date: 2026.01.08 16:04:33 +0500 FIR No. 666/2013 State v. Ali Javed Page 9 of 17 that As on 13.12.2013, he was pursuing B.A. in Jamia Milia Islamia. While going to University, he had parked his bike near boundary wall opposite nai basti. Accused was attending phone call of his father. In the meanwhile, accused witnessed several persons running and police officers running behind them. All the said persons crossed the road and police officers caught him. Police officers thought that accused was also one of the persons who were running. Ct. Manveer Singh Huda and Ct. Rohtash asked accused for his ID card which he duly provided. However, accused was again accused of gambling. They started arguing with accused and afterwards, hit him on his head with danda. Accused was later on taken to PS from where he was first taken to Alshifa Hospital and thereafter to AIIMS Trauma Center. Thereafter, accused got to know that present case has been registered against him. He opted not to lead Defence Evidence and thereafter the matter was listed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS
16. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for the Accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
17. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the state that there is sufficient material on record to convict the Accused for the said offences.
18. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the Accused has argued that the state has failed to establish its case beyond Digitally signed by BHAVAYA BHAVAYA KARHAIL KARHAIL Date: 2026.01.08 16:04:38 +0500 FIR No. 666/2013 State v. Ali Javed Page 10 of 17 reasonable doubt and that there are several contradictions in the case of the prosecution. He further argued that the victim in the present case has himself contradicted the story of the prosecution and testimony of defence witnesses is enough to prove the accused innocent.
19. The onus and duty to prove the case against the Accused is upon the prosecution and the prosecution must establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the guilt of the Accused, he is entitled to be given benefit of doubt resulting in his acquittal. Reference may also be made to the judgment titled as Nallapati Sivaiah v. Sub Divisional Officer, Guntur, VIII (2007) SLT 454 (SC).
20. To prove its case, the prosecution first examined complainant/PW-1/Ct. Rohtash who testified the circumstances in which he found bike bearing No. DL 3SBE 5972 in unattended condition and the fact that present accused Ali Javed tried to take away the bike and when stopped by Ct. Rohtash, had physically assaulted him. PW1 further identified accused, the motorcycle and his uniform.
21. Prosecution further examined PW-2 Bijender, however PW2 did not support the case of prosecution and claimed that he has no knowledge of the present case despite the leading questions put to him by Ld. APP for the state, he was unable to BHAVAYA Digitally signed by BHAVAYA KARHAIL KARHAIL 16:04:43 +0500 Date: 2026.01.08 FIR No. 666/2013 State v. Ali Javed Page 11 of 17 disclose any incriminating fact against the accused. He denied being present at the spot at the time of incident.
22. PW3 Yadram deposed that around 2-3 years back, he was woken from his sleep by commotion and saw accused Ali Javed and one police official namely Rohtash fighting. He further stated that accused was bleeding. He denied the suggestion that accused had hit or abused Ct. Rohtash.
23. Prosecution further examined PW-4/HC Arvind who stated that he received a call regarding quarrel at around 04.00 PM on 13.12.2013. He further stated that on reaching spot, he met Ct. Rohtash and produced accused Ali Javed. He clarified that the quarrel did not took place in his presence.
24. Complainant Ct. Rohtash was accompanied by HC Manvir during the whole incident, he was examined by prosecution as PW-5. He disclosed that they both found one CBZ bike in unattended condition. Thereafter, Ct. Rohtash proceeded to take the said bike to police station. He further stated that at around 03.45 PM, when he reached near boundary wall, near Nai Basti, he saw that public persons were quarreling with Ct. Rohtash and one such person had hit himself on his head and warned Ct. Rohtash of falsely implicating him. PW-5 claimed to have apprehended the said person.
25. Prosecution further examined PW-6/Insp. Umesh Yadav, however he was not involved in any substantial manner with the investigation of the present case. Prosecution also BHAVAYA Digitally signed by BHAVAYA KARHAIL KARHAIL Date: 2026.01.08 16:04:50 +0500 FIR No. 666/2013 State v. Ali Javed Page 12 of 17 examined PW-7/SI Brahm Prakash who disclosed that he obtained permission u/s 195 CrPC. PW-8 Dr. Abdur Rehman identified signatures of Dr. Shazia on MLC bearing No. 328 and 329 (Ex. PW8/B and Ex. PW8/C).
26. PW-9/Retd. SI Liyakat Ali disclosed that he had executed the process u/s 82 CrPC against the accused at his house H-46, Abul Fazal Enclave, Part I, Okhla Jamia Nagar and the fact that he had met one Sabir who informed him that the accused had went to their native village and the fact that he had pasted the process on the outer wall of the house.
ANALYSIS
27. As per the case of prosecution, accused Ali Javed had tried to prevent Ct. Rohtash from taking away one abandoned motorcycle to the police station and had thereafter abused and physically assaulted him thereby obstructing public servant in discharge of public function alongwith assault/criminal force and simple hurt thereby committing offence u/s 186/353/332 IPC.
28. The case of prosecution relies upon testimony of the complainant/Ct. Roshtash, SI Manbir and HC Arvind. Among them, complainant is the victim himself, whereas SI Manbir is the only other eye witness to the present case. PW-5/SI Manbir has deposed in consonance with the testimony of Ct. Rohtash. He has correctly mentioned the registration number of the bike which he and Ct. Rohtash had found in abandoned condition and which Ct. Rohtash had proceeded to take towards the police station. He has Digitally signed by BHAVAYA BHAVAYA KARHAIL KARHAIL Date: 2026.01.08 16:04:55 +0500 FIR No. 666/2013 State v. Ali Javed Page 13 of 17 further disclosed other facts including the fact that accused had hit himself with stone in his presence and had warned Ct. Rohtash of implicating him falsely.
29. However, qua the allegations of abusing, physical assault by accused upon complainant Ct. Rohtash, PW5 merely stated "I also saw that public persons were quarreling with Ct. Rohtash. One of the public persons who was quarreling with Ct. Rohtash, picked one stone and hit himself on his head and stated that he would falsely implicate in a case and also told teri wardi utarwa dunga".
30. From the above statement, "the quarrel" which PW-5 had witnessed has not been appropriately described. "Quarreling" is a very subjective and vague term and may also include mild disagreement. Further, from the above statement, the use of criminal force or assault by the accused is also not appropriately discernible. PW5 has not described the way in which accused had attacked/assaulted the complainant, i.e., whether he had used his hands, fist, kicks or any other body part or weapon in order to use criminal force/assault upon the complainant or had voluntarily caused hurt to the body of complainant.
31. The ingredients of Criminal Force and Assault as per section 350 and 351 IPC respectively, are not fulfiled by the fact of accused hitting himself with a stone.
32. The other independent witnesses cited by prosecution, i.e., PW2 Bijender and PW3 Yadram have also not BHAVAYA Digitally signed by BHAVAYA KARHAIL KARHAIL Date: 2026.01.08 16:05:00 +0500 FIR No. 666/2013 State v. Ali Javed Page 14 of 17 supported the case of prosecution entirely. PW-2 had categorically stated that he has no knowledge of the facts of present case and has even refused to accept his presence at the place of incident.
33. On the other hand, PW3 Yadram has testified of hearing commotion around the boundary wall and had also disclosed that he saw accused Ali Javed and Ct. Rohtash fighting. He also claimed that accused was bleeding. From his testimony, it is also not possible to tell whether any injury was caused by the accused upon Ct. Rohtash. The term 'fighting' is as vague as term 'quarreling'. PW3 has been unable to disclose as to who was the aggressor of the fight or the fact that in which manner the accused was 'fighting'.
34. PW-8 Dr. Abdur Rehman has duly proved the signatures upon MLC bearing No. 328 and 329 dt. 13.12.2013 with regards to the preliminary check up of Ct. Rohtash and accused. Perusal of the MLC pertaining to Ct. Rohtash shows that no visible injury was found on his body and upon his own reporting, the injuries were described as simple in nature. On the other hand, the MLC of accused Ali Javed disclosed that he had suffered laceration over his scalp (2x0.5, 1x0.5 cm). It is clear that the extent of injuries suffered by the accused is severe than that of Ct. Rohtash.
35. Although, the extent of injury suffered by the accused as compared the injury of complainant is not by itself a proof of accused being innocent. Present case relies mostly upon the BHAVAYA Digitally signed by BHAVAYA KARHAIL KARHAIL Date: 2026.01.08 16:05:04 +0500 FIR No. 666/2013 State v. Ali Javed Page 15 of 17 testimony given by Ct. Rohtash. The testimony of other witnesses is not sufficient to prove the case of prosecution. The fact that both the independent witnesses have failed to support the case of prosecution must be kept in mind. Although, the case of prosecution cannot be thrown out merely because the witnesses supporting its case are police officials, however the court must be on its guard when the testimony of independent witnesses favours the accused.
36. The testimony of Ct. Rohtash is not supported by other corroborative evidence. PW5 Mahabir failed to disclose the very image accused had attacked/physically assaulted the complainant or the way in which he had tried to obstruct the complainant from carrying on his duty. Further, as discussed above, the independent witnesses have not disclosed any incriminating evidence against the accused. The testimony of Ct. Rohtash must be considered in light of the other available witnesses. As such, the testimony of other witnesses, the MLC showing severe injury of accused and the fact that both the independent witnesses have resiled from their earlier statement, the statement of complainant Ct. Rohtash does not inspire confidence. Thus, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt qua the allegations as covered u/s 186/353/332 IPC.
38. On the other hand, the testimony of PW-9/Retd. SI Liyakat Ali qua execution of process u/s 82 CrPC is sufficient to BHAVAYA Digitally signed by BHAVAYA KARHAIL KARHAIL 16:05:08 +0500 Date: 2026.01.08 FIR No. 666/2013 State v. Ali Javed Page 16 of 17 prove that the process of court issued vide order dt. 25.11.2021 was duly served. The accused has not given any explanation or defence in order to prove its non execution or offering any reasonable excuse for non appearance on subsequent date. Accordingly, accused stands convicted of offence u/s 174A IPC.
39. Resultantly, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the Accused namely, Ali Javed S/o Akbar Abbas is hereby acquitted of offence u/s 186/332/353 IPC and convicted of offence u/s 174A IPC.
Announced in open court on 08.01.2026 in the presence of the Accused.
The judgment contains 17 pages and each page have been signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signed by BHAVAYA BHAVAYA KARHAIL
KARHAIL Date: 2026.01.08
16:05:13 +0500
(BHAVAYA KARHAIL)
JMFC-08 (SE): Saket Courts
New Delhi:08.01.2026
FIR No. 666/2013 State v. Ali Javed Page 17 of 17