Delhi District Court
State vs Jagdish @Jagga And Other on 9 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-02,
NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY: SH. ANMOL NOHRIA, DJS
STATE Vs. JAGDISH @ JAGGA & ORS.
FIR No. : 84/2020, U/s 341/323/325/34 IPC
PS : SEELAMPUR
CNR NO. DLNE020000042021
-: JUDGMENT :-
1.FIR No. 84/2020
2.Unique Case no. 9/2021
3.Title State vs. Jagdish @ Jagga &
Ors.
3(A).Name of complainant Deepak S/o Inderjeet
3(B).Name of accused 1) Jagdish @ Jagga S/o Munsi
Ram,
2) Sumit @ Amit S/o Dewki
Nandan,
3) Dewki Nandan @ Virender
S/o Late Sh. Puran Chand,
All R/o CPJ IIND 35, New
Seelampur, North-East, Delhi Digitally
signed by
NOHRIA
3 (C). Representation on Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Ld. APP NOHRIA ANMOL
ANMOL Date:
behalf of State for the State. 2026.04.09
14:52:16
+0530
State vs. Jagdish @ Jagga & Ors. FIR No. 84/2020 P.SSeelampur Page No. 1 of 6
4.Date of institution of 05.01.2021
challan
5.Date of Reserving 02.09.2025
judgment
6.Date of pronouncement 09.04.2026
7.Date of commission of 24.03.2020
offence
8.Offence complained of u/S 323/341/325/34 IPC.
9.Offence charged with u/S 341/323/325/34 IPC.
10.Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
11.Final order ACQUITTED
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision of the Case :-
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 24.03.2020 at about 05:00 PM at the shop of accused Sumit @ Amit, all accused persons in furtherance of their common intention had wrongfully restrained the complainant namely Deepak and gave beatings to him due to the which, complainant caused simple and grievous injuries on his person. On conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed for the offences U/s 341/323/325/34 IPC against the accused persons. The copy of the charge sheet was supplied to the accused persons in compliance of provision U/s 207 Cr.P.C.
Digitally signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL Date: ANMOL 2026.04.09 14:52:22 +0530
State vs. Jagdish @ Jagga & Ors. FIR No. 84/2020 P.SSeelampur Page No. 2 of 6
2. On the basis of the contents of the charge-sheet and after hearing both the parties, the notice was framed against the accused persons namely Jagdish @ Jagga, Sumit @ Amit @ Gattau and Dewaki Nandan @ Virender for the offences under Section 341/323/325/34 IPC vide order dated 04.08.2023.
3. Thereafter, matter was listed for Prosecution Evidence. The prosecution had cited a total of 06 witnesses in support of its case. However during the trial the complainant/injured/PW/Deepak did not turn up for evidence despite service of summons through DCP and consequently he was dropped from the list of witnesses.
4. After the same, Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the complainant/injured is the material witnesses, who has not been appeared before this court. Therefore, accused shall be acquitted without making him go through the rigors of trial.
5. It is noted that the complainant/injured was summoned on various occasions but he did not turn up for evidence despite service of Digitally signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL summons through DCP concerned. Therefore, vide separate order the ANMOL Date:
2026.04.09 14:52:30 +0530 witness was struck off from the list of prosecution witnesses. Since the State vs. Jagdish @ Jagga & Ors. FIR No. 84/2020 P.SSeelampur Page No. 3 of 6 complainant/injured was the only material witness who can prove the incident in question; and the remaining witnesses were formal in nature, therefore, the remaining witnesses were also dropped and PE was closed because there was no chances of improvement in the case of prosecution as complainant/injured has been dropped from the list of witnesses and no other eye witness has been mentioned in the complaint or chargesheet.
6. In this regard reference may be made to a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in the case of Govind & Ors vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 104(2003) DLT 510 wherein it was held that "..In cases where ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak or there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of Digitally signed by formally completing the proceedings to NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
pronounce the conclusion on a future date. " 2026.04.09 14:52:36 +0530
7. Right to speedy trial is constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of the accused person. It has been held in State vs. Jagdish @ Jagga & Ors. FIR No. 84/2020 P.SSeelampur Page No. 4 of 6 P.Ramchandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka AIR 2022 SC 1856 that the court should exercise its power available under Criminal Procedure Code to give effect to the right of speedy trial to the accused. Similar observations were made in Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Mahrashtra AIR 2008 SC 3057. Furthermore, in Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Abr. 1996 JCC 507 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that valuable time of the court should not be wasted merely for formal completion of procedure when there is no chance of the trial culminating in conviction.
8. Since the complainant/injured could not be examined, in the absence of any incriminating evidence, statement of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.
9. It is cardinal principal of criminal law that accused persons be presumed to be innocent till prove guilty. Also, it is a settled principal of criminal law that the prosecution has to prove its case to the hilt and beyond reasonable doubt, which in the instant case the prosecution has failed to do. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion, there is no incriminating evidence on record against the accused persons.
Digitally Thus, it is held that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond signed by NOHRIA NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL Date:
reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused persons Jagdish @ Jagga, 2026.04.09 14:52:45 +0530 State vs. Jagdish @ Jagga & Ors. FIR No. 84/2020 P.SSeelampur Page No. 5 of 6 Sumit @ Amit @ Gattau and Dewaki Nandan are acquitted of the offences punishable U/s 341/323/325/34 IPC.
10. Bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused persons stands discharged. Original be returned to rightful owner after cancellation of endorsement. Superdarinama, if any, hereby stands cancelled.
11. Accused persons are directed to furnish bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with the sureties of like amount u/S 437A Cr.P.C and are directed to be present before the Ld. Appellate Court as and when directed.
12. This judgment contains 06 pages. This judgment has been signed and pronounced by the undersigned in open court.
13. Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official website of District Courts, Karkardooma forthwith.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
NOHRIA Digitally signed by NOHRIA ANMOL ANMOL 14:52:56 +0530 Date: 2026.04.09 Announced in the open (ANMOL NOHRIA) Court on 09th April., 2026 JMFC-02/NE/KKD COURTS State vs. Jagdish @ Jagga & Ors. FIR No. 84/2020 P.SSeelampur Page No. 6 of 6