Delhi District Court
State vs Anil Kumar Ors on 13 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SEEMA NIRMAL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS -09,
SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT / SAKET COURTS, DELHI
Cr. CASES 85727/2016
STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR & ORS.
FIR NO. 847/2015
PS JAITPUR
JUDGMENT
a. CNR NO. DLSE020005322016
b. Name of the Complainant Sh. Prem Singh
c. Name of the accused & his (1) Anil Kumar
parentage and address (2) Sunil Kumar
Both S/o Sh. Birpal Singh
(3) Anita
(4) Poonam
Both D/o Sh. Birpal Singh
(5) Shripal
S/o Sh. Birpal Singh
All R/o A-83, Hari Vihar,
near Kakrola Mor, Dwarka,
New Delhi
d. Offence charged 323/341/506/34 IPC
e. Date of commission of 24.02.2015
offence
f. Date of Institution 31.05.2016
Cr. CASES 85727/2016 PAGE 1 OF 18
STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR & ORS.
FIR NO. 847/2015 SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
NIRMAL 16:15:36 +0530
Date: 2025.12.13
PS JAITPUR
g. Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
h. Order Reserved on 13.12.2025
i. Date of Pronouncement 13.12.2025
j. Final Order Acquital
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
All Accused persons along with Ld. LAC Counsel for all accused persons.
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 24.02.2015, at about 11.00 am, at H.no.65, Street no.2, Jaitpur Extension Part-I, Gyan Mandir Road, Badarpur, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Jaitpur, accused Shripal, Sunil, Poonam, Anil and Anita in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily caused hurt to Mr. Prem Singh, wrongfully restrained the complainant and also criminally intimidated the complainant with threats to kill him and thereby all the aforesaid accused persons committed offence punishable u/s 323/341/506/34 IPC.
Cr. CASES 85727/2016 PAGE 2 OF 18
STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR & ORS.
FIR NO. 847/2015
SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
PS JAITPUR NIRMAL 16:15:41 +0530
Date: 2025.12.13
2. This case was registered on the statement of complainant Sh. Prem Singh who stated that he is a resident of house no. H-65, street no. 2, Jaitpur Extension Part 1, Gyan Mandir Road, Badarpur, New Delhi 110044 and he used to repair pressure cookers. He stated that his wife Anita used to harass him everyday. He stated that on 24.02.2015, at around 11.00 am, his three brothers-in-law namely Anil, Sunil, Shripal and one sister-in-law Poonam came to his house and called him from the shop and brought him at home. After reaching home, they talked to his wife Anita and locked him in the room and started giving beatings to him. Complainant stated that when he raised an alarm, the people of the street gathered and got the gate opened and he was saved. He further stated that he was given beatings with kicks, punches and sticks due to which he got injuries and he was also threatened that if he made complain to the police, then they will kill him and due to the fear, he did not make any complaint to the police. Complainant further stated that in the meantime, he called Raja Ram for intervention and Raja Ram came to the street near his house after hearing his call, then his wife after seeing Raja Ram started saying that "yahi aadmi hai jo prem ko mere Cr. CASES 85727/2016 PAGE 3 OF 18 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR & ORS.
FIR NO. 847/2015
SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2025.12.13
16:15:45 +0530
PS JAITPUR
pati ko shai deta hai, ab iski naukri khakar dikhaungi", On hearing this, Raja Ram quietly returned back to his home. There were 25-30 people present there at the time. Complainant further stated that after Raja Ram returned home, his wife tore her clothes and blamed Raja Ram for the said act and called at 100 number. Complainant further stated that prior to that, he made a call at 100 number and PCR van came at the spot and took him, his wife and in-laws to the police station. Complainant further stated that he has fed up with the hooliganism of his in-laws. He further stated that his wife had earlier done such act against her nephew when she had gone to her home and he went to pick her up but she refused to come with him and started quarrelling with him. On this, his brother-in-law's son Amar asked her bua as to why she was harassing fufaji, on this, they also broke his head and his wife also tried to file a rape case against her nephew Amar, but the matter was resolved due to intervention. Complainant further stated that there also, his inlaws gave beatings to him. He further stated that the allegations made by his wife against Raja Ram are false and she used to go away from home on her own will and comes back on her own will and he has fear that his brother-
Cr. CASES 85727/2016 PAGE 4 OF 18
STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR & ORS.
FIR NO. 847/2015 SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
NIRMAL 16:15:49 +0530
Date: 2025.12.13
PS JAITPUR
in-laws may kill him. Thereafter, on the basis of statement of complainant, present case FIR was registered and the accused persons were arrested. After completion of investigation, final report in the form of charge sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. for the offences under Sections 323/341/506/34 IPC was forwarded to the Court against the accused persons for trial.
3. After taking cognizance of the offences by the court, the accused persons were summoned. Pursuant to their appearance, in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., copy of charge sheet was supplied to them. Subsequently, after perusal of the judicial file and hearing the parties, a prima facie case against all the accused persons for commission of offence punishable u/s 323/341/506/34 IPC was found to be made out. Accordingly, on 23.09.2016, formal charge of accusation for commission of offence under Sections 323/341/506/34 IPC was framed upon all the accused persons, to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was posted for Prosecution Evidence.
Cr. CASES 85727/2016 PAGE 5 OF 18
STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR & ORS.
Digitally signed by
SEEMA SEEMA NIRMAL
FIR NO. 847/2015 NIRMAL Date: 2025.12.13
16:15:53 +0530
PS JAITPUR
4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, examined the following witnesses; viz.
i) PW-1 Smt. Kashmiri Devi (eye witness),
ii) PW2 Sh. Prem Singh (complainant),
iii) PW-3 Sh. Daya Ram (eye witness),
iv) PW-4 HC Vinod Kumar (police witness),
v) PW-5 Lady Ct. Mamta (police witness)
vi) PW-6 ASI Rakesh Kumar (IO),
5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, also relied upon the following documents:
1) complaint of complainant Prem Singh as Ex. PW2/A,
2)site plan as Ex. PW6/A,
3) notice u/s 41(A) Cr.P.C issued to accused Anita, Sripal, Anil and Sunil as Ex. PW6/B to Ex. PW6/F respectively,
4) bound down memo of accused persons as Ex. PW6/G to Ex. PW6/K respectively,
6. In addition to the above-mentioned witnesses, the accused persons also admitted factum of registration of FIR no.847/2015, PS Jaitpur, Corresponding rukka and certificate u/s 65B IE Act as Ex.A-1 to Ex. A-3 respectively, in terms of Section 294 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 25.02.2023, hence, the said witnesses were dropped on the Cr. CASES 85727/2016 PAGE 6 OF 18 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR & ORS.
SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
FIR NO. 847/2015 NIRMAL 16:15:57 +0530
Date: 2025.12.13
PS JAITPUR
submissions of Ld. APP for State.
7. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein all incriminating circumstances led against them during the trial by the prosecution witnesses were put to them, affording them an opportunity to give their explanation, if any. Accused pleaded innocence and claimed that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. However, accused preferred not to lead defence evidence and therefore, DE was closed. Thereafter, the matter was posted for final arguments.
8. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and the Ld. counsel for the accused and gone through the case file carefully and minutely. After hearing rival contentions and after appreciation of evidence on file, I am of the considered view that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts and the arguments advanced by the ld. APP for the state cannot be accepted for the reasons given below.
Cr. CASES 85727/2016 PAGE 7 OF 18
STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR & ORS.
Digitally signed
FIR NO. 847/2015 SEEMA by SEEMA
NIRMAL
NIRMAL Date: 2025.12.13
16:16:01 +0530
PS JAITPUR
9. The material witness of the prosecution is the complainant Prem Singh on whose complaint the present case has been registered against the accused. He has been examined as PW-1. His complaint is Ex.PW-1/A. As per his complaint, on the day of occurrence, the accused namely Anil, Sunil and Shripal alongwith his sister in law i.e. brothers and sister of his wife came to his shop and called him to his house and locked him inside a room and had beaten him up and when he had called his friend Raja Ram, he came on the spot but when his wife Anita threatened him for his job, then he left from there. This is the whole story of the prosecution. However, there are several inconsistencies and contradictions in his testimony as well as testimony of other prosecution witnesses. While appearing as PW-2, the complainant Prem Singh deposed that the police recorded the statements of eye witnesses namely Raja Ram and Kashmiri Devi whereas name of Kashmiri Devi was not mentioned by complainant in his complaint Ex.PW-1/A. Further, date of incident is 24.02.2015 and the complaint was filed by him on 04.03.2015 and the FIR was registered on 30.11.2015 i.e. after more than 9 months. There was ample time for the complainant to mention the names of eye witnesses Cr. CASES 85727/2016 PAGE 8 OF 18 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR & ORS.
Digitally signed
SEEMA by SEEMA NIRMAL FIR NO. 847/2015 NIRMAL 16:16:05 Date: 2025.12.13 +0530 PS JAITPUR but still name of alleged eye witness namely Kashmiri Devi was not mentioned by him in his complaint. Moreover, said alleged eye witness namely Kashmiri Devi while appearing as PW-1 clearly stated in her cross-examination that at the time incident she was present at the shop. Thus, it is highly improbable that she could have witnesses the alleged incident. Thus, it seems that the alleged eye witness namely Kashmiri Devi has been planted by him otherwise her name would have been mentioned in the initial complaint. Consequently, testimony of PW-1 namely Kashmiri Devi becomes untrustworthy and unreliable. Further, complainant PW-2 stated in his cross-examination that the police had recorded statement of his friend Daya Ram. Said Daya Ram appeared as PW-3 and he has stated in his cross- examination that the incident took place in his presence but at the same time he also admitted that he can not see the house of the complainant from his shop. Further, in his examination in chief he has only stated that he heard the noise at the home of the Prem Singh which means he was already at the house of the Prem Singh when he heard the noise, if any. So, how he came to know about the incident, which drove him to the place of occurrence, has not been explained by Cr. CASES 85727/2016 PAGE 9 OF 18 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR & ORS.
SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL FIR NO. 847/2015 NIRMAL Date: 2025.12.13 16:16:09 +0530 PS JAITPUR him. Further, name of said alleged eye witness namely Daya Ram was not mentioned by the complainant in his complaint Ex.PW-1/A. Thus, it seems that the alleged eye witness namely Daya Ram has been planted by him otherwise his name would have been mentioned in the initial complaint Ex. PW 1/A. Consequently, testimony of PW-3 namely Daya Ram becomes untrustworthy and unreliable. Moreover, as admitted by the complainant in his cross-examination the incident took place inside the house and the outside gate was locked. Thus, otherwise also it is highly improbable that anyone from outside could have witnessed the alleged occurrence as deposed by the complainant. All of this makes the version of the prosecution doubtful and as such benefit of the same shall go to the accused.
10. Further, as per the complaint PW-1/A, one Raja Ram was actively involved in the incident but said witness has not been examined by the prosecution and as such best witness has been withheld by the prosecution and benefit of the same shall go to the accused. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Amit Kantiwal v. Mukesh Mittal (Punjab And Haryana) CRM-A No.863-MA of 2014 (O&M). D/d. 30.03.2015 and Digamber Vaishnav Vs. state of Cr. CASES 85727/2016 PAGE 10 OF 18 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR & ORS. SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL FIR NO. 847/2015 NIRMAL 16:16:12 +0530 Date: 2025.12.13 PS JAITPUR Chhatisgarh, AIR 2019 SC 1377.
11. Therefore, from the above discussion, it is clear that the case of the prosecution solely rests on the testimony of a solitary witness namely Prem Singh, complainant. There is no other eye witness of the present case. Accordingly, the accused can not be convicted on the sole testimony of the complainant especially when the same suffers from contradictions and inconsistencies as discussed above. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Laxman Chandar Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra (Bombay), 2016 (1) AIR Bom.R (Cri) 751, wherein it has been held as follows:-
"15. Except Taibai, there was no other witness to the occurrence. The other witnesses i.e. PW No.1 - Laxman Mane, PW 3 - Kashinath Borse, PW 4 - Bhimabai had not witnessed the incident and the alleged assault. The evidence of Kashinath (PW 3) only shows that he had heard exchange of words between the deceased Lahanu and Chander. Bhimabai (PW4) was declared as hostile and questions in the nature of cross- examination were permitted to be put to her. However, nothing which would advance the prosecution version could be elicited from her even pursuant to such questioning and she categorically denied having seen the appellant giving a dig by elblow to deceased Lahanu. When the criminal act attributed to the appellant, was sought to be established by the testimony of a solitary witness it was absolutely necessary for the court to arrive at a satisfaction that such solitary witness is 'wholly reliable'. For basing a conviction on the testimony of a solitary witness - without any corroboration - the Court must be satisfied that such witness is 'wholly reliable'. In the instant Cr. CASES 85727/2016 PAGE 11 OF 18 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR & ORS.
FIR NO. 847/2015 SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL 16:16:16 +0530 Date: 2025.12.13 PS JAITPUR case, there were a number of infirmities and contradictions in the version of Taibai and these infirmities were noticed and recorded by the learned Sessions Judge himself. Apart from these infirmities and contradictory versions, what cannot be overlooked is that the version of assaulting another by giving him a blow by the elbow, itself is an abnormal happening. Why would the person not give a straight and normal blow, if he wanted to hit another and would instead only give a nudge or dig by elbow, was not considered by the learned Sessions Judge. Somebody intending to cause physical hurt to a person, giving such person only a nudge, is quite unheard of. Thus, this improbability coupled with the other infirmities in the evidence of Taibai, and the absence of any corroboration whatsoever to her claim, should have led the learned Sessions Judge to doubt the assertion of Taibai to the effect that the appellant had hit her husband by the elbow."
12. Further, it is well settled that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. Clear and unimpeachable evidence is necessary to convict a person. This court finds that such evidence is absent in this case. Reliance in this regard can be placed on 'Anil s/o Shamrao Sute & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2013(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 541'.
13. The accused has been further charge sheeted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC. For reference, Section 341 of IPC is hereby reproduced as under:
Cr. CASES 85727/2016 PAGE 12 OF 18
STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR & ORS.
SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
FIR NO. 847/2015
NIRMAL 16:16:20 +0530
Date: 2025.12.13
PS JAITPUR
341.-Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
14. "Wrongful Restraint" has been defined under Section 339 of IPC. Therefore, the essential ingredients of Section 341 of IPC are that:
(1)there was some voluntary obstruction caused;(2) the obstruction was such as to prevent any person from proceeding in any direction;(3)the person obstructed had a right to proceed in that direction.
15. However, in Keki Hormusji Gharda vs Mehervan (2009) 6 SCC 475, it was held that the word 'voluntarily' in section 339 of IPC connotes that obstruction should be direct. The obstruction must be a restriction on normal movement of a person. It should be physical one. But there is no evidence to this effect on the file. Moreover, in Rupan Deol Bajaj vs K.P.S. Gill (1995) 6 SCC 194, it was held that the only allegation relating to the wrongful restraint is that the accused stood in front of the appellant in such a manner that she had to move backward. From such act alone it can not be said that he wrongfully restrained her within the meaning of Section 339 Cr. CASES 85727/2016 PAGE 13 OF 18 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR & ORS.
SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
FIR NO. 847/2015 NIRMAL 16:16:24 +0530
Date: 2025.12.13
PS JAITPUR
of IPC to make him liable under Section 341 of IPC. In the present case also there is no evidence as to the fact that the complainant was restrained by the accused persons from proceeding in any direction.
16. No independent witness joined: As per the version of the prosecution/official witnesses, no independent witness was joined in the investigation in spite of availability as complainant had mentioned in his complaint that 25-30 persons came on the spot. So, it creates doubt on the prosecution story. In Jeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1998(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 274, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that:
"5. In the opinion of this Court, this revision should succeed on the short ground that there was a legal infirmity in the investigation. It is the case of the prosecution that HC Lekh Raj received the secret information when he was at a public place. The police party was going on patrol. In these circumstances it was mandatory on the part of the Head Constable to associate the independent witness when he could associate it without any difficulty or inconvenience.
There is no cogent evidence why the independent witness has not been associated. In these circumstances, to base the conviction of the petitioner solely relying upon the statements of two police officials would be unfair..."
Cr. CASES 85727/2016 PAGE 14 OF 18
STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR & ORS.
FIR NO. 847/2015 SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
NIRMAL 16:16:28 +0530
Date: 2025.12.13
PS JAITPUR
17. No evidence regarding ingredients of threat: The law is quite explicit that mere empty threats do not constitute the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. The threats issued only make out the offence under section 506 only when the said threats cause alarm to the person to whom it are issued.
There is no mention that the said threats caused alarm to the complainant or to any other person. In the absence of any evidence or deposition with regard to the alarm to the victim consequent to the alleged threats the offence under Section 506 of IPC is not constituted. Furthermore, administration of a threat hedged by certain conditions does not bring the case within the mischief of Section 506 IPC. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon Sita Ram Vs. State, 1974 P.L.R. 421; Usha Bala Vs. State of Punjab, 2002(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 445;
and Surinder Suri Vs. State of Haryana, 1996(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 701.
18. Further, as per the contents of the complaint the incident took place around on dated 24.02.2015 whereas FIR was registered on dated 30.11.2015 and as such there is delay of more than 9 months in filing of FIR/complaint which has not been explained by the prosecution and as such concoction and false implication on the part of the complainant cannot be ruled out and thus benefit of the same should be given to the accused. Reliance in this Cr. CASES 85727/2016 PAGE 15 OF 18 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR & ORS.
SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
FIR NO. 847/2015 NIRMAL 16:16:32 +0530
Date: 2025.12.13
PS JAITPUR
regard may be placed on Ajay Kumar Jain & Anr. v. State (Delhi) 2013(7) R.C.R.(Criminal) 159, it has been held as follows:
"10. The incident of complainant's abduction took place on 17th August, 1997 and the complainant was released also by the appellants same day but the FIR was lodged on 19th August, 1997 and that delay had not been explained satisfactorily by the prosecution. To the police he did not given any reason as to why he had not reported the incident on the date of his abduction itself or even next morning. However, in Court during his evidence he stated that he did not lodge the report with the police same day as he was terrified and that explanation has been accepted by the learned trial Court but in fact that explanation does not inspire confidence since he did not even claim to have informed anyone about the incident nor did he go to any doctor also despite the fact that he had sustained grievous injuries and he claimed that his two teeth had been broken. It is not acceptable that a person who has suffered grievous injuries would not even go to some doctor. And when he was examined by the doctor after he had lodged the FIR on 19.08.1997 PW-8 Dr. A.K. Khare, dental surgeon, had opined the injuries to be fresh and he also clarified that by fresh injuries he meant the injuries to be 2/3 hours duration. That statement of the prosecution's own medical witness also renders the complainant's version that Cr. CASES 85727/2016 PAGE 16 OF 18 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR & ORS.
SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL FIR NO. 847/2015 NIRMAL Date: 2025.12.13 16:16:36 +0530 PS JAITPUR he was abducted by the appellants on 17.08.1997 and thereafter was badly beaten also during the period of his confinement highly doubtful. In these circumstances, the delay in lodging of the FIR assumes more significance. So, the prosecution case was doubtful and the plea of false implication taken by the appellants because the complainant owed money to them became probable since the complainant himself had admitted in his evidence that he owed money to them and he did not claim that he had paid the money as was claimed by him in his complaint to the police."
19. Further, as admitted by complainant/PW 1 himself the case property ie. Danda was never recovered in the present case as it is stated by him in his cross-examination that police did not seize the Danda used in quarrel. Which further makes a dent in the prosecution version. Reliance is placed upon case of Ishwar Singh Vs. State of UP AIR 1976 SC 2423 quoted in the case of Nahar Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1990 (2) CC Cases 119 HC.
20. So, considering the entire evidence brought on record, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused committed the alleged offences. In the light of discussion made above, this court is of the considered view that the evidence led by the prosecution is highly insufficient and discrepant on the material aspects of the case. It is the bounden duty of the Cr. CASES 85727/2016 PAGE 17 OF 18 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR & ORS.
FIR NO. 847/2015
SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL Date: 2025.12.13 16:16:40 +0530 PS JAITPUR prosecution to prove its case against the accused present in the court beyond the reasonable doubts. In the instant case, prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts and so they are entitled to benefit of doubt.
21. Accordingly, by giving benefit of doubt to the accused, they are acquitted of the charges framed upon them in this case. Case property, if any, be disposed of as per rules after expiry of period of appeal/revision.
SEEMA Digitally signed by
SEEMA NIRMAL
NIRMAL 16:16:45 +0530
Date: 2025.12.13
Announced in the Open (SEEMA NIRMAL)
Court on 13.12.2025 JMFC-09/ SED/ Saket Courts,
New Delhi/13.12.2025
It is certified by me that this judgment contains 18 pages and each page is personally signed by me.
SEEMA Digitally signed by SEEMA NIRMAL NIRMAL 16:16:49 +0530 Date: 2025.12.13 (SEEMA NIRMAL) JMFC-09/ SED/ Saket Courts, New Delhi/13.12.2025 Cr. CASES 85727/2016 PAGE 18 OF 18 STATE Vs. ANIL KUMAR & ORS.
FIR NO. 847/2015 PS JAITPUR