Delhi District Court
State vs Devender Pal on 10 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEPAKSHI RANA, JMFC-03
DISTRICT SHAHDARA, KKD, COURT, DELHI
a Serial No. of the case : FIR No. 207/2016 PS Welcome
[CR No. 36/2017]
b Date of the commission of the : 05.05.2016
offence
c Name of the Complainant : Taj Mohd.
d Name of Accused person and his : Devinder Pal
parentage and residence S/o Kallu Ram
R/o A-31/46D, Bhatia Gali, Maujpur,
Delhi
E Offence complained of : 279/338 IPC
F Plea of the Accused and his : Not guilty.
examination (if any)
G Final Order : Acquitted
H Order reserved on : 10.03.2026
I Order pronounced on : 10.03.2026
1.Vide this judgment, the present FIR bearing No. 207/2016 registered with PS Welcome on 05.05.2016 on the statement of complainant against accused person shall be decided and disposed off.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION-:
2. A police report in the form of charge-sheet was put up against the accused person by the State through Station House Officer of PS Welcome on 14.12.2016 alleging that on 05.05.2016 at about 8:15 PM at Keshav Chowk under pass, Welcome, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Welcome, accused was driving the vehicle bearing No. DL 3 CAF 5801 in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving the abovesaid vehicle in abovesaid manner, accused hit the complainant Taj Mohd. and caused grievous injuries to the complainant and thereby committed an offences punishable U/s 279/338 IPC.
Trial proceedings:-
FIR No. 207/2016 PS Welcome titled as State v. Devinder Pal 1/7 Digitally signed DEEPAKSHI by DEEPAKSHI RANA RANA Date: 2026.03.10 16:32:14 +0530
3. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the court on 14.12.2016 under section 279/338 IPC against the accused person and on 04.05.2017, cognizance was taken in this matter and summons were issued to accused person to appear before the court to face trial. Upon appearance of accused person before the court, copies of challan were supplied to him as per the provisions u/s 207 Cr. PC
4. After hearing detailed arguments, charges under sections 279/338 IPC were framed upon the Accused person on 12.04.2018, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accordingly, matter was taken up for recording prosecution evidence. 5 In order to bring home the guilt of the Accused, Prosecution has examined 01 witnesses as follows:-
Prosecution Name of Description
Witness No. Witness
1. ASI Arvind Investigation Officer
Kumar
It is pertinent to note that there were 11 other witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses apart from the abovesaid witness including the complainant, DO, DD writer, MHCM, Mechanical inspector Sh. M. L. Dhyani, arrest/ investigation witnesses, Superdar and doctors.
It is pertinent to mention here that complainant / PW-1 Taj Mohd. was partly examined in chief on 25.09.2019 and further examination in chief of PW Taj Mohd. was deferred for want of case property. Thereafter complainant stopped appearing before the court and several processes were issued to complainant to appear before the court. On 23.11.2023, report was received on process issued to complainant that complainant has expired and on 09.04.2025, complainant was dropped from list of witnesses on receipt of death verification report.
FIR No. 207/2016 PS Welcome titled as State v. Devinder Pal 2/7
Digitally signed
by DEEPAKSHI
DEEPAKSHI RANA
RANA Date:
2026.03.10
16:32:25 +0530
It may be noted that duty officer who had registered the FIR, endorsed the rukka, issued the certificate U/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act and DD writer who had recorded the DD Entry No. 83 B dt. 05.05.2016 were dropped from list of witnesses vide separate statement of the accused person recorded U/s 294 Cr. PC dt. 06.02.2026.
In the present matter, rest of the witnesses were also dropped from list of witnesses at request of Ld. APP for the state as complainant has already been dropped and IO had already been examined as in Satish Mehra Vs Delhi Administration & Anr. 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. Hence, rest of PWs were dropped from list of witnesses. For a quick perusal, the documents exhibited by the examined witnesses on record are listed below:-
Exhibit No. Description of the Proved by / Attested by Exhibit
1. Seizure memo of PW-2 car, parchi and rehdi
2. Seizure memo of PW-2 DL
3. Arrest memo of PW-2 accused
4. Personal search PW-2 memo of accused
5. Seizure memo of PW-2 RC
6. Notice U/s 133 MV PW-2 Act
7. Mechanical PW-2 inspection of vehicle After examination of aforesaid witness, PE was closed and the matter was listed for recording of statement of accused U/s 313 Cr. PC.
FIR No. 207/2016 PS Welcome titled as State v. Devinder Pal 3/7 Digitally signed by DEEPAKSHI DEEPAKSHI RANA RANA Date: 2026.03.10 16:32:33 +0530
6. After completion of Prosecution evidence as aforesaid, statement of accused person u/s 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded on 10.03.2026 whereby he was put with all the incriminating evidence brought by the prosecution against him. Accused person denied all the allegations of the prosecution and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further added that he was not driving the vehicle on the alleged date of incident.
When questioned as to whether he wanted to lead evidence in his defence, Accused person answered in negative and matter was fixed for final arguments.
Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for accused have addressed their detailed final arguments in this matter.
Summary of final arguments:-
7. Ld. APP for the State has vehemently argued that the accused person be convicted for the offences with which he has been charged as the said offences are heinous in nature and leaving the accused person free without any penalty being imposed upon him would rather make him commit similar offences again. It is further argued by Ld. APP for the State that even though complainant expired, it is undisputed that FIR was registered in this matter upon a written complaint of complainant and therefore, accused person deserve to be held guilty.
8. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for accused has strongly opposed the contentions of Ld. APP for the State stating that the accused person has been facing trial since more than 10 years but the prosecution has been unable to bring even an iota of valid evidence against the accused person which points out towards his guilt. It is further argued that merely because the complainant initiated the criminal proceedings against the accused person in this matter, he cannot be held liable for it as the complainant in the present matter expired. Thus, Ld. Counsel for FIR No. 207/2016 PS Welcome titled as State v. Devinder Pal 4/7 Digitally signed by DEEPAKSHI DEEPAKSHI RANA RANA Date: 2026.03.10 16:32:43 +0530 the accused person has strongly pressed upon setting the accused person at liberty by acquitting him.
9. This court has duly heard the rival submissions advanced by the Ld. APP for State and the Ld. Counsel for the accused person and has also perused the entire record carefully.
Brief reasons for the decision:-
10. At the outset, before proceeding further on to discussing the weight and relevancy of evidence led by the prosecution, this court deems it appropriate to first highlight the cardinal principles of Criminal Jurisprudence, i.e. one, that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty and two, that the burden upon the prosecution lies to the extent of proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove all the ingredients which constitute the offence so that all reasonable doubts in the case of the prosecution are removed. It may be noted that strongest of suspicion upon the accused, does not lead to the guilt of the accused. At this stage, this court is also reminded of the ratio laid down by William Blackstone in his seminal work, Commentaries on the Laws of the England [1765s] wherein it was expressed that "it is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer". This ratio also finds it place in the theology of the Indian Criminal Justice System since time immemorial.
Thus, keeping in view the above stated aspects and principles of criminal jurisprudence this court shall proceed to decide upon the innocence or guilt of the accused.
11. Coming now to the facts of the case, prosecution has cited several witnesses including one public witness i.e. the complainant himself. As the complainant was eyewitness of the alleged offence, he would have been the best witness to this FIR No. 207/2016 PS Welcome titled as State v. Devinder Pal 5/7 Digitally signed by DEEPAKSHI DEEPAKSHI RANA RANA Date: 2026.03.10 16:32:49 +0530 case, however, to the utter dismay of prosecution, he unfortunately passed away and hence was dropped from the list of witnesses. Rest of the witnesses cited by the prosecution were only formal witnesses, who played some part in the investigation but were not first hand witnesses to the alleged incident. Thus, the guilt of the accused person could not have been proved by the prosecution from the mere testimony of said formal witnesses inasmuch as, the alleged incident was never committed in their presence.
12. Moving further, it is pertinent to note that IO who has deposed in this matter have only been able to prove the arrest memo, personal search memo of the accused person etc. Just because a case has been registered against the accused person upon a written complaint given by the complainant does not establish the guilt of the accused person and it is incumbent upon prosecution to prove the case by bringing cogent evidence.
13. It is pertinent to state here that the complainant was the only witness who could have established the commission of the offence by the accused person as he was the victim himself. For proving offence under section 279 IPC act of rash and negligent driving of accused and all the essential elements laid down in the provision needed to be satisfied before any person is held guilty under the same and for the same, identification of accused person was necessary. In this matter, complainant was dropped as he expired therefore his testimony could not be recorded on oath before the court. Perusal of the file reveals that no other witness has been cited by the prosecution who could prove the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It is important to note that apart from the complainant, all the witnesses in the present charge-sheet are formal in nature being police witnesses who have admittedly not witnessed the offences being committed by the FIR No. 207/2016 PS Welcome titled as State v. Devinder Pal 6/7 Digitally signed by DEEPAKSHI DEEPAKSHI RANA RANA Date: 2026.03.10 16:32:59 +0530 accused person and therefore they were dropped.
14. It is pertinent to mention here that complainant was the star witness to this case. However, to the utter dismay of prosecution, he could not be brought forth for deposition before the court and thus, no material evidence with respect to incident in question could come on record.
15. In view of the discussion held above, it is apparent that the witness examined by the prosecution could not even bring the slightest of confirmation with respect to the guilt of Accused person in the present matter. It is already settled in law that the burden upon the prosecution is to bring home the guilt of the accused on the basis of evidence collected during investigation and when the prime public witness to the case himself remained absent, there remains no scope of doubt with respect to the lack of sufficient proof by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused person. Moreover, as per the tenets of criminal jurisprudence, benefit of doubt in the case of the prosecution goes to the accused.
16. Therefore, keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the considered view that the Prosecution has failed to discharge the burden imposed upon it by law of proving the guilt of the Accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, Accused Devinder Pal is held not guilty and hereby acquitted of the charges framed against him U/s 279/338 IPC in the Digitally signed present case. by DEEPAKSHI DEEPAKSHI RANA ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN RANA Date: 2026.03.10 COURT ON 10.03.2026 16:33:10 +0530 (Deepakshi Rana) JMFC-03, District Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts/Delhi [This judgment has been directly typed on computer to dictation] [This judgment contains 07 signed pages FIR No. 207/2016 PS Welcome titled as State v. Devinder Pal 7/7