Delhi District Court
State vs Pawan Kumar Jain on 14 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF Ms. DIVYA ARORA:
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04: NORTH-WEST
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No. 196/2019
PS Keshav Puram
State Vs. Pawan Kumar Jain & ors.
Date of Institution: 16.01.2020
Date of Judgment: 14.05.2025
JUDGMENT
(a) Serial Number of the case : 288/2020
(b) Date of commission of offence : 21.06.2019
(c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Rakesh Kumar Jain
(d) Name of Accused, his : (1) Pawan Kumar Jain
parentage & residence S/o R. L. Jain
(2) Rahul Jain,
S/o Naresh Kumar Jain
(3) Saurav Jain @ Bablu
S/o Pawan Kumar Jain
(4) Gaurav Jain
S/o Pawan Kumar Jain
All R/o: H.No. 2494/193-A,
Omkar Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi.
(e) Offence complained of : U/s: 323/325/341/506/34 IPC
(f) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final order : Acquitted
FIR No. 196/2019 (PS Keshav Puram)
U/s 323/325/341/506/34 IPC
State Vs . Pawan Kumar Jain & ors. Page No. 1 of 11
DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA
ARORA
ARORA Date: 2025.05.14 16:44:45
+0530
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1) The present case arises out of an FIR lodged by the complainant Rakesh Kumar, alleging that on 21.06.2019 at about 8:30 PM in front of House No. 2494/193, Omkar Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi he was wrongfully restrained and assaulted by all the accused persons namely Pawan Kumar Jain, Rahul Jain, Saurav Jain @ Bablu and Gaurav Jain at the place of incident. According to the complainant, he was subjected to beatings with fists and kicks, resulting in grievous injuries. When his son, Mohit Kumar, came to his rescue, he too was allegedly assaulted by the accused persons, who also extended threats to kill complainant. The prosecution invoked offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 341, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2) After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in Court, cognizance of the offences was taken, the abovesaid accused persons were summoned and after that, they entered appearance, copy of the chargesheet alongwith the documents was supplied to them in compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3) Charge was then framed against the accused persons namely Pawan Kumar Jain, Rahul Jain, Saurav Jain @ Bablu and Gaurav Jain on 20.07.2022 for the commission of offences under Section 323/325/341/506/34 IPC against the accused persons, to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, and matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
FIR No. 196/2019 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/341/506/34 IPC State Vs . Pawan Kumar Jain & ors. Page No. 2 of 11 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.05.14 16:44:54 +0530
4) To prove its case, the prosecution examined 05 witnesses.
5) PW-1 Rakesh Kumar has deposed that on 21.06.2019 at about 08.30 pm, he met the brother of accused namely Naresh Jain at the shop and while having conversation with him, the accused persons came to him in a drunken state and when he refused to have any conversation with the accused, accused persons Pawan Kumar Jain alongwith co-accused persons started giving him blows and slaps and accused persons pushed the complainant due to which he fell down upon the stone and he suffered injuries. Thereafter, PW1's son came for the help and accused persons started beating him and later on police arrived at the spot upon a call placed by PW-1 at 100 number. PW-1 gave his statement to IO SI Prem Pal Ex.PW1/A. He also identified the accused persons in the court.
6) PW-2 Mohit Gupta has deposed that on 21.06.2019 around 8.30 pm, he saw many public persons gathered around a place and when he reached near the spot, PW-2 saw the accused persons beating his father i.e. PW-1 and when he tried to save PW-1 from accused persons, all accused persons started beating him and after being saved by public persons, he made a call at 100 number. Upon arrival of police officials, they took PW-1 to Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital and PW-2 and all the accused persons to PS Keshav Puram. Father of PW-1 sustained grievous injuries and he was shifted to Maharaja Agresen Hospital. PW-2 further deposed that he handed over the CD of the incident in question to police officials which was seized by the FIR No. 196/2019 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/341/506/34 IPC State Vs . Pawan Kumar Jain & ors. Page No. 3 of 11 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.05.14 16:45:00 +0530 IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. He also identified the accused persons in the court.
7) PW-3 Dr. Pankaj Kumar has deposed that on 21.06.2019, one patient namely Rakesh was brought by police officials at about 10.55 pm with alleged history of physical assault and upon examination of patient, he prepared MLC No. 3455. He further deposed that after examination of witness, he referred the patient for Ortho opinion and later on, the injuries were found to be grievous. PW-3 identified his signature on MLC Ex.PW3/A. He further deposed that on the same night at about 11.40 pm, another patient namely Mohit Gupta was brought by police officials with alleged history of physical assault and upon his examination, MLC no. 3461 Ex.PW3/B was prepared bearing his signature at point A.
8) PW-4 HC Dinesh has deposed that on 21.06.2019, he alongwith IO SI Prem Pal was on night duty and on that day, IO received a call vide DD No. 48-A. He further deposed that he alongwith IO reached at the spot i.e. 2520/193-A, Onkar Nagar, Delhi where they came to know that the injured has already been taken to Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital. It is further deposed by him that upon reaching the hospital, IO collected the MLC of injured namely Rakesh and Mohit. Thereafter, complainant Rakesh gave the complaint to the IO in the hospital on which IO prepared the rukka and sent PW-4 for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, PW-4 went back to Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital and handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir to the IO. Thereafter, IO alongwith PW-4 and brother of injured FIR No. 196/2019 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/341/506/34 IPC State Vs . Pawan Kumar Jain & ors. Page No. 4 of 11 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.05.14 16:45:05 +0530 Rakesh went to the spot where IO prepared the site plan. Thereafter, PW-5 alongwith the IO arrested the accused persons vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D and personally searched all the accused persons vide personal search memos Ex.PW4/E, Ex.PW4/F, Ex.PW4/G and Ex.PW4/H. He identified the accused persons in the court.
9) PW-5 Retd. SI Prem Pal Sharma / IO deposed that on 21.06.2019, he was posted at PS Keshav Puram as SI and on that day, he received a call vide DD no. 48-A, and upon which he alongwith Ct. Dinesh, went to the spot i.e. H.No. 2494/193-A, Onkar Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi where he came to know that a quarrel had taken place between the parties and injured persons were already taken to Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital by the PCR van. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Dinesh went to Deep Chand Bandhu Hospital where MLC No. 3455/19 of injured Rakesh, and MLC No. 3461/19 of injured Mohit were collected by him. The nature of injure in the MLC No. 3455/19 was found under observation and the nature of injury in MLC No. 3461/19 was found NIL. Thereafter, he met one Madhu and she handed over him a written complaint Ex.PW1/A. IO made endorsement on the same which is Ex.PW5/A. Thereafter, IO handed over the said rukka to Ct. Dinesh for registration of FIR. Ct. Dinesh left the hospital for registration of FIR. After that IO went to the spot where IO prepared site plan Ex.PW5/B. In the same night, Pawan came at PS and handed over to the IO a written complaint. On the same day, IO arrested the accused persons namely Gaurav Jain, Rahul Jain, Saurabh Jain and Pawan Kumar Jain vide arrest memos Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, FIR No. 196/2019 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/341/506/34 IPC State Vs . Pawan Kumar Jain & ors. Page No. 5 of 11 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.05.14 16:45:11 +0530 Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D. IO also conducted the personal search of accused persons vide memos Ex.PW4/E, Ex.PW4/F, Ex.PW4/G and Ex.PW4/H. During investigation, In the MLC No. 3455/19, the nature of injury was found as grievous, and in MLC No. 3461/19, the nature of injury was found as simple. Thereafter, IO added Section 325 IPC in the present case. During investigation, Mohit handed over a CD of quarrel / incident to the IO and IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. CD is Mark-P1. He identified all the accused persons in the Court.
10) Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of accused was recorded under Section 281 read with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons who maintained their innocence. Accused persons stated that "They have been falsely implicated and complainant was standing at the shop of accused and he was shouting and abusing, and accused Pawan Kumar Jain went there and requested him not to shout and abuse in front of the shop but instead of stopped doing so, he complainant started quarrel with accused Pawan Kumar Jain and after listening the noise from outside the house of accused, accused Rahul Jain went there and found that complainant was fighting with accused Pawan Kumar Jain. Accused Rahul Jain tried to resolve the situation. However, instead of resolving the same, matter got worsen and complainant called his son Mohit at the spot, during quarrel complainant fell down and got injured. " Accused persons have chosen not to lead defence evidence and matter was fixed for final arguments.
FIR No. 196/2019 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/341/506/34 IPC State Vs . Pawan Kumar Jain & ors. Page No. 6 of 11 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.05.14 16:45:16 +0530
11) Final arguments as advanced by the Ld APP for the State and by Ld. counsel for the accused have been carefully considered along with the evidence on record.
12) The prosecution relied primarily upon the testimonies of PW1 Rakesh Kumar (complainant) and PW2 Mohit Kumar (his son), along with certain formal witnesses including the Investigating Officer and Medical Officers. It also placed reliance on the MLCs of the injured persons and a CD, marked as Ex.P-1, purportedly containing video footage of the incident.
13) The defence has assailed the case of the prosecution by highlighting material inconsistencies in the evidence on record. It has been submitted by the Ld. defence counsel that there is significant confusion regarding the preparation of the site plan - namely, at whose instance it was prepared and who was present at the time. Additionally, it was argued that the CD on record is of dubious origin, does not bear any date or time stamp, and no source or certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act has been furnished. The defence further submitted that there is not a single public witness examined, even though the complainant and his son have themselves stated that many persons from the locality were present at the spot. Lastly, it was submitted that this case is a counterblast to FIR No. 197/2019, which pertains to the same date and is pending adjudication.
14) It is a settled proposition of law that in a criminal trial, it is for the State to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by leading FIR No. 196/2019 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/341/506/34 IPC State Vs . Pawan Kumar Jain & ors. Page No. 7 of 11 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.05.14 16:45:21 +0530 reliable, cogent and convincing evidence and it is for the prosecution to ensure that its case is able to stand on its own legs. The prosecution cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weakness of the defence of the accused if any. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution version.
15) On examining the evidence in detail, several critical shortcomings in the prosecution's case emerge. To begin with, both PW1 and PW2 have admitted that several public persons gathered at the spot during or immediately after the incident. PW1 went a step further and stated that members of the public not only intervened but also recorded a video of the incident. Despite these assertions, no effort was made by the Investigating Officer to cite or examine any of these public witnesses. Even the complainant's mother, who according to PW2 reached the spot, was not examined. The Investigating Officer(PW5) himself admitted in his deposition that no public witness was ever examined. The failure to examine any neutral witness from the locality, particularly when the incident is claimed to have taken place in full public view, casts a serious doubt on the prosecution story.
16) The inconsistencies in relation to the site plan further weaken the prosecution case. The chargesheet records that the site plan was prepared at the instance of the complainant (PW1), whereas PW2 stated in his deposition that it was prepared at his instance. Yet, the site plan (Ex. PW5/B) does not bear the signature of either PW1 or PW2. PW4 has stated that the IO prepared the site plan in the presence of the complainant's brother, but the brother has not been examined or cited FIR No. 196/2019 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/341/506/34 IPC State Vs . Pawan Kumar Jain & ors. Page No. 8 of 11 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.05.14 16:45:26 +0530 as a witness. If he was present at the scene, his non-examination assumes significance, especially when the version about who was present and who pointed out the location to the IO is riddled with contradictions. Such inconsistencies materially affect the credibility of the prosecution's case.
17) Even more troubling is the confusion surrounding the initial complaint Ex. PW1/A. PW1 stated in his examination-in-chief that his statement was recorded by the IO in the hospital, but in his cross-examination, he stated that Ex.PW1/A was written by his brother. The IO (PW5), on the other hand, claimed that one Madhu handed over the complaint to him. This "Madhu" is a mystery figure - neither mentioned in the chargesheet, nor examined, nor corroborated by any other witness. This contradiction raises serious concerns about the genesis of the FIR and whether it was lodged spontaneously or was subsequently manipulated.
18) Coming to the video footage marked as Ex.P-1, the prosecution's case suffers from several incurable defects. PW2, who handed over the CD to the police, admitted in cross-examination that he does not know who recorded the video or who sent it to him. He did not provide the mobile phone through which he received the footage, nor did he disclose the identity of the neighbour from whom he purportedly received it. No attempt was made by the IO to trace the original source or to examine the person who actually recorded the incident. More importantly, the CD does not bear any date or time stamp. The footage was played in court and observed by the Ld. Predecessor and all FIR No. 196/2019 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/341/506/34 IPC State Vs . Pawan Kumar Jain & ors. Page No. 9 of 11 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.05.14 16:45:32 +0530 stakeholders, and the absence of date and time was recorded in the cross-examination conducted on 28.08.2023. Furthermore, no certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was furnished by the prosecution, which is a mandatory precondition for admissibility of electronic evidence. The CD, therefore, remains an unverified and inadmissible piece of evidence.
19) Lastly, the pendency of a cross-case bearing FIR No. 197/2019, pertaining to the same date, adds a further layer of complexity. The defence has asserted that the present FIR is a retaliatory measure in response to that FIR. While this court does not delve into the merits of the said cross-case, the existence of a parallel narrative casts further doubt on the credibility of the complainant's version.
20) In totality, the prosecution has failed to present a coherent and trustworthy case. The contradictions between witnesses, the failure to produce or examine independent witnesses, the mystery surrounding the origin of the complaint and the CD, and the absence of basic procedural safeguards with respect to electronic evidence all contribute to substantial and reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution.
21) In a criminal trial, the burden lies entirely on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. That standard has not been met in the present case. In fact, the inconsistencies and lapses in the investigation create positive doubt in the mind of the court. In such circumstances, the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted.
FIR No. 196/2019 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/341/506/34 IPC State Vs . Pawan Kumar Jain & ors. Page No. 10 of 11 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.05.14 16:45:37 +0530 Decision:
22) Accordingly, the accused persons namely (1) Pawan Kumar Jain S/o R.L. Jain, (2) Rahul Jain S/o Naresh Kumar Jain, (3) Saurav Jain @ Bablu S/o Pawan Kumar Jain, and (4) Gaurav Jain S/o Pawan Kumar Jain are acquitted for the offence under Sections 323, 325, 341, 506 read with Section 34 IPC in the present case.
23) Accused persons are directed to furnish bail bond and personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each under section 437(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is directed to be present before the Ld. Appellate Court as and when notice is served upon them.
24) File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on 14.05.2025.
DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.05.14 16:45:43 +0530 (DIVYA AORA) Judicial Magistrate First Class-04/ North West Rohini District Court/New Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 11 pages and each page bears my signature.
DIVYA DIVYA ARORA Digitally signed by
ARORA Date: 2025.05.14
16:45:50 +0530
(DIVYA AORA)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-04/ North West Rohini District Court/New Delhi FIR No. 196/2019 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/341/506/34 IPC State Vs . Pawan Kumar Jain & ors. Page No. 11 of 11