Delhi District Court
S T A T E vs Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj on 19 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. EBBANI AGGARWAL,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-03,
NORTH-WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Case No. 528908/2016
FIR No.: 310/2011
P.S.: North Rohini
State Vs. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj
U/s. 285/337/338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
STATE
VERSUS
1. ASHOK KUMAR BHARDWAJ
S/o Sh. R.S. Sharma
R/o H. No. 537, Suhhgi Apartment, Sector-13
Rohini, New Delhi
2. SHYAM SUNDER YADAV
S/o Late Sh. Ram Singh
R/o H. No. C-38, Naharpur Village, Sector-7
Rohini, New Delhi
Date of institution of case : 20.10.2012
Date of reserving the judgment : 19.01.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 19.01.2026
JUDGMENT
CNR No. DLNW020004632012
Date of Commission of 26.10.2011
Offence
Name of the complainant Sh. Prashant
Offence complained or proved Section 285/337/338/304-A
of Indian Penal Code, 1890
Plea of the Accused Pleaded not guilty
Final Order Both accused have been Digitally
acquitted EBBANI
signed by
EBBANI
AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.19
14:33:10
Cr. Case No. 528908/2016 FIR No. 310/2011 P.S. North Rohini Page No. 1 of 10 +0530
State vs. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj
BRIEF FACTS, COGNIZANCE AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
1. Facts, in brief, as alleged by the prosecution are that on 26.10.2011, in between 08:00 PM to 08:30 PM, at C-38, Na- harpur, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi, accused Ashok Bhardwaj and accused Shyam Sunder Yadav, in furtherance of their common intention, had recklessly or negligently, kept fibre sheets, flex board, mattress and sofa in the godown which lead to a fire causing injuries to Ms. Priya, Ms. Poonam, Ms. Raj Rani, Sh. Pawan Kumar, Ms. Riya and Sh. Deepak.
2. Investigation was carried out and upon completion, the in- stant charge-sheet alleging an offence punishable under Section 285/337/338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. (herein- after referred to as "IPC") was filed against accused Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the accused was summoned.
3. Thereafter, vide order dated 17.09.2014, accused Shyam Sunder Yadav was also summoned as an accused in the present matter.
4. Upon appearance of both accused, copy of charge sheet and annexed documents was supplied to the accused persons in compliance of Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.").
5. Prima facie case was made out against the accused persons and notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. was served upon the accused persons for commission of an offence under Section 285/336/337/34 of IPC on 11.02.027 to which the accused Digitally signed by EBBANI EBBANI AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.19 14:33:18 +0530 Cr. Case No. 528908/2016 FIR No. 310/2011 P.S. North Rohini Page No. 2 of 10 State vs. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for recording of prosecution evidence.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. In order to substantiate the allegations, the prosecution ex- amined total of 11 witnesses, however, the entire case of prosecution is based upon the testimony of PW-1 Mohd. Liyakat, PW-2 Sh. Mohd. Azaz, PW-3 Guddu @ Deepak, PW-4 Sh. Pawan Kumar Keshari, PW-5 Poonam and PW-6 Md. Salauddin who are either the injured persons or the per- sons to who some loss of property was caused due to the out- break of the fire.
7. The other witnesses are either formal witnesses or police witnesses who cannot prove the involvement of accused persons beyond reasonable doubt in absence of supportive testimony of PW-1 to PW-6. Therefore, it is imperative to firstly discuss if the said witnesses have supported the case of prosecution or not and accordingly, their testimony is be- ing discussed foremost.
8. PW-1 Sh. Mohd. Liyakat has deposed that in 2011, he was residing at House No. C-38, Naharpur Village, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi and his landlord, accused Shyam Sunder Ya- dav, had given ground floor of the said property on rent to accused Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj. PW-1 has further deposed that accused Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj was running a factory of flex board and fibre sheets and has stored fibre sheets in the godown. PW-1 has further deposed that on 26.10.2011, a fire broke out at the godown of accused Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj due to which his motorcycle bearing number Digitally signed by EBBANI EBBANI AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.19 Cr. Case No. 528908/2016 FIR No. 310/2011 P.S. North Rohini Page No. 3 of 10 14:33:31 +0530 State vs. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj DL-11-SA-5326 got burnt and further that fire took place on account of firecrackers as the said incident happened on the night of Diwali. PW-1 has further deposed that the accused persons were not at fault.
9. Since, PW-1 was not entirely supporting the case of prosec- ution, permission to cross-examine PW-1 was sought by Ld. APP for State which was granted. During cross-examination by Ld. APP for State, PW-1 has resiled from his statement Ex. PW-1/A and has stated that he never told the IO that the fire broke out due to negligence of accused persons.
PW-1 was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons, despite opportunity.
10.PW-2 Sh. Mohd. Azaz has deposed on similar lines as PW-1 and has stated that the fire broke out due to firecrackers and the accused persons are not at fault.
PW-2 was cross-examined by Ld. APP for State and during cross-examination by Ld. APP for State, PW-2 has also resiled from his earlier statement Ex. PW-2/A and has stated that he never told the IO that the fire broke out due to negli- gence of accused persons.
PW-2 was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons, despite opportunity.
11.PW-3 Sh. Guddu @ Deepak had completely turned hostile and was cross-examined by Ld. APP for State wherein PW-3 has stated that it is correct that a fire broke out in the godown on 26.10.2011 due to which his motorcycle was burnt and due to the fire, he, his wife and children suffered EBBANI AGGARWAL Digitally signed by EBBANI AGGARWAL Cr. Case No. 528908/2016 FIR No. 310/2011 P.S. North Rohini Page No. 4 of 10 Date: 2026.01.19 14:33:40 +0530 State vs. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj from suffocation and police officials rescued them and took them to BSA Hospital.
12.PW-3 has further deposed that the fire broke out due to fire- crackers as it happened on the night of Diwali and the ac- cused persons are not at fault. PW-3 has resiled from his earlier statement Ex. PW-3/A and has stated that it is wrong to suggest that he had told the IO that the fire broke out due to negligence of accused persons.
PW-3 was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons, despite opportunity.
13.PW-4 Sh. Pawan Kumar Keshri has turned hostile and has not supported the case of prosecution. During cross-examin- ation by Ld. APP for State, PW-4 has deposed on similar lines as PW-3, has resiled from his statement Ex. PW-4/A, has stated that the fire broke out due to firecrackers, and that he never told the IO that the fire broke out due to negligence of accused persons.
PW-4 was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons, despite opportunity.
14.PW-5 Ms. Poonam has turned hostile and has not supported the case of prosecution. During cross-examination by Ld. APP for State, PW-5 has deposed on similar lines as PW-3, has resiled from her statement Ex. PW-5/A, has stated that the fire broke out due to firecrackers, and that she never told the IO that the fire broke out due to negligence of accused persons.
PW-5 was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons, despite opportunity.
Digitally
signed by
EBBANI
EBBANI AGGARWAL
Cr. Case No. 528908/2016 FIR No. 310/2011 P.S. North Rohini Page No. 5 of 10
AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.19
14:33:46
State vs. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj +0530
15.PW-6 Sh. Md. Salauddin has deposed on similar lines as PW-1 and has stated that the fire broke out due to firecrack- ers and the same was an accident which occurred without any negligence on part of the accused persons.
PW-6 was cross-examined by Ld. APP for State and during cross-examination by Ld. APP for State, PW-6 has also resiled from his earlier statement Ex. PW-6/A and has stated that he did not tell the IO that the fire broke out due to negli- gence of accused persons.
PW-6 was not cross-examined on behalf of accused persons, despite opportunity.
16.Since none of the public witnesses/ injured persons have supported the case of prosecution, the testimony of other witnesses is not being discussed for sake of brevity as they are either police witnesses or formal witnesses.
17.Statement of accused persons in terms of Section 294 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein the accused persons have ad- mitted the genuineness of FIR No. 310/2011 which is Ex. A-1, Endorsement on Rukka which is Ex. A-2, Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act regarding the aforesaid FIR which is Ex. A-3, GD No. 24A which is Ex. A-4 and FSL Report which is Ex. A-5, without admitting the contents of the same.
18.In view of the above, witnesses mentioned at serial no. 16 and 22 in the list of prosecution witnesses were dropped and since no other prosecution witnesses were left to be ex- amined, PE was closed on 17.11.2025.
Digitally STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.
signed by EBBANI EBBANI AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.19 14:33:58 +0530 Cr. Case No. 528908/2016 FIR No. 310/2011 P.S. North Rohini Page No. 6 of 10 State vs. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj
19.Separate statement of both accused in terms of Section 313 Cr.PC. read with Section 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence were put to both accused, to which both accused had stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case.
However, both accused did not opt to lead defence evidence, and the matter was listed for final arguments.
FINAL AGRUMENTS
20.Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution has been able to prove all the ingredients for commission of the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt and it was the negligence on part of accused persons in storing the flex boards and sheets which lead to the outbreak of fire through testimony of the public witnesses/injured persons. Ld. APP for State has further argued that prosecution has also been able to prove that injuries were caused to various people through MLCs which have been proved by PW-7 and accordingly, accused persons be convicted for the alleged offences.
21.Per contra, it has been argued on behalf of accused persons that prosecution has not been able to establish that fire broke out on account of any negligence on part of the accused persons and further that none of the injured persons or public witnesses has deposed anything incriminating against the accused persons. It has further been argued on behalf of accused persons that all the public witnesses/injured persons have turned hostile, have not supported the case of prosecution and accordingly, accused Digitally signed by EBBANI EBBANI AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.19 Cr. Case No. 528908/2016 FIR No. 310/2011 P.S. North Rohini Page No. 7 of 10 14:34:09 +0530 State vs. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj persons be acquitted for the alleged offences.
DISCUSSION ON MERTIS
22.This Court has carefully perused the case record, has heard arguments advanced by Ld. APP for State as well as argu- ments lead on behalf of accused persons and has carefully gone through the entire material available on record and evi- dence led on behalf of the prosecution.
23.Under the Indian criminal jurisprudence, it is a well-estab- lished principle that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty and the burden is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the case of prosecution ap- pears to be improbable or lacks credibility, the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the accused persons.
This Court shall now proceed to discuss whether the prose- cution has been able to establish the above-mentioned ingre- dients by leading reliable and cogent evidence or not.
24.In the present case, it was utmost imperative for the prosecu- tion to prove that the fire broke out due to negligence of ac- cused persons because of which injuries were sustained by Ms. Priya, Ms. Poonam, Ms. Rani Raj, Sh. Pawan Kumar, Ms. Riya and Sh. Deepak.
25.PW Prashant Kumar Giri was dropped from the list of wit- ness filed by the prosecution on 13.08.2018, PW Ms. Piya and PW Sh. Deepak were dropped from the list of witness filed by the prosecution on 28.02.2019 and PW Md. Sheikh Digitally signed by EBBANI EBBANI AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
Cr. Case No. 528908/2016 FIR No. 310/2011 P.S. North Rohini Page No. 8 of 10 2026.01.19 14:34:20 State vs. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj +0530 Iftkar and PW Sanjay Kumar were dropped from the list of witness filed by the prosecution on 23.09.2019.
26.Accordingly, the prosecution has relied upon testimony of PW-1 to PW-6 to prove the allegations against the accused persons, however, none of the said witnesses have sup- ported the case of prosecution. PW-1 to PW-6 have instead stated that the fire broke out because of firecrackers, the fire did not break out because of any negligence on part of the accused persons and have not deposed anything incriminat- ing the accused persons.
27.The other witnesses which have been examined by the pros- ecution are either police witnesses or formal witnesses and none of the witnesses have deposed anything to suggest that the fire broke out due to negligence of accused persons.
28.In view of the above, this Court is of the view that prosecution has not lead any evidence whatsoever to establish that the fire broke out due to negligent act of the accused persons due to which injuries were sustained by various persons.
CONCLUSION
29.In view of the foregoing facts, marshalling of evidence as well as established legal position, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to establish that the fire broke out on account of negligence of accused persons due to which injuries were sustained by various persons beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused persons and accused Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj S/o Sh. R.S. Sharma Digitally signed by EBBANI AGGARWAL Cr. Case No. 528908/2016 FIR No. 310/2011 P.S. North Rohini Page No. 9 of 10 EBBANI AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.19 State vs. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj 14:34:29 +0530 and accused Shyam Sunder Yadav s/o Late Sh. Md. Mahiuddin are hereby acquitted for alleged commission of offence under Section 285/336/337/34 of IPC.
30.This judgement contains 10 pages and all pages have been Digitally digitally signed by undersigned. signed by EBBANI EBBANI AGGARWAL Announced in open Court (EBBANI AGGARWAL) AGGARWAL Date:
2026.01.19 on 19.01.2026 Judicial Magistrate First Class-03 14:34:35 +0530 North-West, Rohini, Delhi Cr. Case No. 528908/2016 FIR No. 310/2011 P.S. North Rohini Page No. 10 of 10 State vs. Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj