Delhi District Court
State vs Madhur Goyal on 17 March, 2026
THE COURT OF SH. UDBHAV KUMAR JAIN,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
STATE v. MADHUR GOYAL
FIR No. -: 113/2015
Police Station -: Madhu Vihar
Section(s) -: 287/338 IPC
Cr. Case No. -: 87816/2016
1. CIS number : DLSH020060322016
2. Name of the complainant : Sh. Ajay
S/o Sh. Uday Singh
R/o B-219, gali no. 4, Ghazipur, Delhi.
3. Name of the accused, : Sh. Madhur Goyal
parentage & residential S/o Sh. Dinesh Kumar
address R/o H. No. B-126, Preet Vihar, Delhi.
4. Offence complained of or : 287/338 IPC
proved
5. Date of commission of : 24.01.2015
offence
6. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
7. Final Judgment : Acquittal
8. Date of judgment/order : 17.03.2026
Date of Institution: 29.11.2016
Date of Reserving Judgment: 17.03.2026
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment: 17.03.2026
Duration: 9 years 3 months
18 days
Argued by: Sh. Kapil Sharma, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. N.K. Gupta, Ld. Counsel for accused.
Digitally
signed by
Udbhav Udbhav
Kumar Jain
FIR No. 113/2015 State vs. Madhur Goyal Kumar Date: Page no. 1 of 10
Jain 2026.03.17
17:17:40
+0530
JUDGMENT
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution against the accused is that on 24.01.2015 at about 04.00 PM, accused Madhur Goyal being owner of the Camphor factory, failed to pay any attention and other precautionary measures for safety of life of the workers due to which grievous injury was caused to the complainant Ajay. As such, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence under sections 287/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC") for which FIR No. 113/2015 was registered at Police Station Madhu Vihar, Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
2. After registration of FIR, the investigating officer (hereinafter 'IO') conducted investigation and on culmination of the investigation, chargesheet against the present accused namely Madhur Goyal for the alleged commission of offences u/s 287/338 IPC was filed. Ld. Predecessor of this Court took cognizance of the offence vide order dated 01.12.2016. After taking cognizance of the offence, accused appeared before the Court and he was supplied the copy of documents relied upon in the charge sheet in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC").
3. Since prima facie offences against the accused were made out, Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 24.04.2023 framed notice against accused namely Madhur Goyal for the offence punishable u/s 287/338 IPC, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain Kumar Date:
Jain 2026.03.17 FIR No. 113/2015 State vs. Madhur Goyal 17:17:48 +0530 Page no. 2 of 10 PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt:
ORAL EVIDENCE Prosecution Name of witness Description Witness No. PW1 Sh. Gopal Singh Eyewitness PW2 Sh. Deepu Singh Eyewitness DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Exhibit Description of Document The Witness Number who proved or attested the document Ex.PW1/A Seizure memo PW-1 Ex.P-1 (colly) Photographs of machine. PW-1 Mark X-1 Statement of PW-1 PW-1 Mark X-2 Statement of PW-2 PW-2 ADMITTED DOCUMENTS u/s 294 Cr.P.C.Ex. A1 FIR No. 113/2015
Ex. A2 Mechanical Inspection Report
dated 10.08.2015
Ex.A3 Panchnama dated 03.09.2015
Ex.A4 MLC No. 2469/2015 dated
24.01.2015
5. Sh. Gopal Kumar (PW-1) in his examination-in-chief deposed that he joined the factory of Madhur Goyal for packing of camphor (Kapur) in the month of July 2015. He stated that he had not witnessed any incident taking place in that factory. Apart from this, he did not wish to say Digitally signed Udbhav by Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No. 113/2015 State vs. Madhur Goyal Kumar Date: Page no. 3 of 10 2026.03.17 Jain 17:17:55 +0530 anything further. He stated that he could identify the accused as he had worked in the factory of the accused. The accused present in the court on that day was correctly identified by the witness. The witness further stated that he could identify the case property, i.e., the hydraulic pressing machine, as he had worked on that machine. When four photographs of the machine were shown to the witness, he correctly identified the hydraulic machine. The photographs were exhibited as Ex. P-1 (colly).
5.1. Since the witness was resiling from his previous statement, Ld. APP for the State was allowed to cross-examine the witness. On his cross- examination by Ld. APP for the State, the witness stated that he had studied up to class 5th. He denied the suggestions that on 24.01.2015 he was present in the aforesaid factory of accused Madhur, that on that day a worker namely Ajay, known to him, used to work on the machine for packing camphor, that on 24.01.2015, while Ajay was cleaning the hydraulic pressing machine, his hand went inside the machine, resulting in the amputation of his finger. Witness was confronted with his previous statement, marked as Mark X1 from Point A to A1, where it was so recorded. The witness denied the suggestion that in his presence the police seized the hydraulic pressing machine. Witness was shown the seizure memo of the hydraulic pressing machine. Upon seeing the same, he stated that the police did not seize any machine in his presence. However, he correctly identified his signature at Point A on the seizure memo. The seizure memo was exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. The witness denied the suggestion that the Investigating Officer had clicked photographs of the machine in his presence and voluntarily stated that no such incident had occurred in his presence and no photographs were taken in his presence. Witness was again confronted with his statement marked as Mark X1 from Point B to B1, where it was so recorded. The witness denied the Digitally signed Udbhav by Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No. 113/2015 State vs. Madhur Goyal Page no. 4 of 10 Kumar Date:
2026.03.17 Jain 17:18:04 +0530 suggestions that he was deliberately not disclosing the complete and true facts of the case as he had been won over by the accused or had settled the matter with him due to their employer-employee relationship, that he was intentionally not disclosing the true facts because he had taken money from the accused to save him from punishment, that he was deposing falsely. Witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
6. Sh. Deepu Singh (PW-2) in his examination-in-chief deposed that he did not remember anything and did not wish to depose anything. He stated that he could identify the accused, as he had worked with him in his factory. He further stated that he could identify the case property, i.e., the hydraulic pressing machine, as he had worked on that machine. When four photographs of the machine were shown to the witness, he correctly identified the case property. The photographs were already exhibited as Ex. P-1 (colly).
6.1. Since the witness was resiling from his previous statement, Ld. APP for the State was allowed to cross-examine the witness. On his cross- examination by Ld. APP for the State, the witness stated that he was illiterate and did not know how to read or write. He admitted that he used to work in the factory of the accused, namely Madhur. He further admitted that in the factory, packaging work of camphor (kapur) was carried out through a hydraulic pressing machine. However, he denied the suggestion that on 24.01.2015 he was present at the factory. He also denied that on that day, between 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM, he was present in the factory. He denied that a worker named Ajay was also working in the factory in the year 2015. He further denied that at about 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM, Ajay was helping him in putting material into the machine. He denied that Ajay's hand got caught inside the machine during the process and that Ajay Udbhav Digitally by Udbhav Kumar Jain signed FIR No. 113/2015 State vs. Madhur Goyal Kumar Date: Page no. 5 of 10 Jain 2026.03.17 17:18:14 +0530 sustained injuries. Witness was confronted with his statement, Mark X2 from Point A to A1, where it was so recorded. He denied the suggestions that the police had recorded his statement, that he was deliberately not disclosing the complete and true facts of the case because he had been won over by the accused or had settled the matter with him due to the accused being his employer, that he was intentionally not disclosing the true facts because he had taken money from the accused to save him from punishment by the court or that he was deposing falsely. Witness was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
7. The whole case of prosecution was dependent on the complainant Ajay; however, he remained unserved in the present matter despite steps taken through DCP concerned and accordingly he was dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 23.01.2024. Further, Gopal Kumar PW-1 and Deepu Singh PW-2 as they were the material witnesses in the present case who saw the alleged commission of offence. PW-1 and PW-2 were in fact eyewitness of the case however, these witnesses turned hostile to the case of prosecution.
8. The identity of accused and his presence on the spot in a criminal trial is of paramount importance and no person can be indicted for criminal liability unless his identity is established beyond any shadow of doubt. In the present case, since the complainant was dropped and material witnesses/eyewitnesses PW-1 and PW-2 have not supported the version of the prosecution, no fruitful purpose will be served to examine other witnesses as no other witness saw the alleged commission of offence and even if their testimonies were to be taken together, they will not establish the guilt of the accused.
Digitally
signed by
Udbhav Udbhav
Kumar Jain
Kumar Date:
FIR No. 113/2015 State vs. Madhur Goyal Jain 2026.03.17
17:18:21 Page no. 6 of 10
+0530
9. Prosecution evidence was closed, vide separate order passed today, as recording of any further prosecution evidence in the present case would result into wastage of judicial time, money, resources and will also cause unnecessary burden upon the accused person. In this regard, reliance is placed upon a Division Bench Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Govind & Ors. vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 104 (2003) DLT 510 wherein it was held that: -
"...In cases where the ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak for there is no prospect of the case and again 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 formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion of a future date."
10. Right to speedy trial is constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of the accused. The present case pertains to an FIR of the year 2015 and continuing the trial any further, when it is clear that prosecution can never hope to prove its case against the accused persons, would be tantamount to violation of right to speedy trial of the accused. It has been held in 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 Maharashtra AIR 2008 SC 3057. Furthermore, in Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Anr. 1996 JCC 507 the 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.
Digitally signedUdbhav by Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No. 113/2015 State vs. Madhur Goyal Kumar Date:
2026.03.17 Page no. 7 of 10 Jain 17:18:27 +0530 STATEMENT AND DEFENCE OF ACCUSED
11. Since no incriminating evidence was brought forth by the prosecution, recording of statements of accused u/s 313 CrPC was dispensed with. Accused chose not to lead evidence in their defence.
ARGUMENTS
12. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsels for the accused. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material available on record.
POINT OF DETERMINATION
13. After going through the record and considering the material available on record, the only point of determination that is left is whether the prosecution can substantiate its case and prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt in the absence of complainant and when the eyewitnesses/material witnesses have turned hostile.
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
14. The general burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
15. The complainant remained unserved in the present matter despite steps taken through DCP concerned and accordingly, he was dropped from the list of witnesses. Further, material witnesses/eyewitnesses PW-1 and PW- 2 turned hostile in the present case on every aspect including on the point of identity of accused. It is pertinent to note that under Indian law, the evidence of hostile witnesses is not discarded completely. The legal Udbhav Digitally by Udbhav Kumar Jain signed FIR No. 113/2015 State vs. Madhur Goyal Kumar Date: Page no. 8 of 10 2026.03.17 Jain 17:18:37 +0530 maxim, "false in uno false in ombnibus" is not applicable in India. With respect to the evidentiary value of hostile witness, it was observed by the Apex Court in the case of Rohtash Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434, as under: -
"25. It is a settled legal proposition that evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto, merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced, or washed off the record altogether. The same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable, upon a careful scrutiny thereof."
16. Now, if the whole evidence available on record is sift through then it is evident that the whole case of prosecution was dependent on the testimony of complainant and material witnesses/eyewitnesses PW-1 and PW-2 who saw the committing of alleged offence. Neither presence of accused persons can be confirmed on the spot nor there is anything on record to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. As such, even if all the other prosecution witness cited in the list of witnesses were to be examined, the case of the prosecution could not be proved.
17. Furthermore, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L. Goswami (Dr) v. State of M.P., (1972) 3 SCC 22 that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt where the onus of proving the ingredients of the offence is not discharged by the prosecution. The same view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court recently in Nanjundappa & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka 2022 SCC OnLine SC 628. In the present case, as already noted above, the prosecution could not discharge the onus of proving the ingredients of offence as the complainant and material witnesses turned hostile. Thus, accused Madhur Goyal are entitled to benefit of doubt.
Digitally signedUdbhav by Udbhav Kumar Jain Kumar Date:
FIR No. 113/2015 State vs. Madhur Goyal Jain 2026.03.17 17:18:44 Page no. 9 of 10 +0530 CONCLUSION
18. In view of the above discussion, the accused Madhur Goyal is hereby found not guilty. Accordingly, accused Madhur Goyal is hereby acquitted of the offences under section 287/338 IPC.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court today i.e., 17.03.2026.
Digitally signedUdbhav by Udbhav Kumar Jain Kumar Date:
2026.03.17 Jain 17:18:49 +0530 (UDBHAV KUMAR JAIN) JMFC-04:SHD:KKD This judgment contains 10 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
FIR No. 113/2015 State vs. Madhur Goyal Page no. 10 of 10