Delhi District Court
Krishan Dabas vs Satish Sharma on 16 October, 2025
1
IN THE COURT OF SAURABH GOYAL:
JMFC- 01, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
CC No. 10462/2017
CNR NO. DLSW020141152017
Krishan Dabas
S/o Late Sh. Jai Lal
R/o D-242/4, Gali No.12,
Raj Nagar II, Palam Colony,
New Delhi-11007 ... Complainant.
Versus
1. Mr. Satish Sharma
2. Mr. Saroj
W/o Sh. Satish Sharma
3. Mr. Varun
S/o Sh. Satish Sharma
All are R/O RZ-241-G, Gali No.12,
Raj Nagar III, Palam Colony,
New Delhi-110077
4. The SHO
PS Palam Village
New Delhi ...... Accused persons
2. Date of institution of the case : 31.05.2017
3. Offence complained or proved : U/S 323/506 Part I R/W 34
IPC
4. Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
Cr. Case No.10462/2017
Krishan Dabas Vs. Satish Sharma & Ors
2
5. Date on which order was reserved : 19.09.2025
6. Final order : Acquittal
7. Date of final order : 16.10.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated the story of the complainant is that on 19.09.2016 at around 5:00 Pm accused Saroj started abusing him on the parking issue and when complainant went to the shop of accused Satish Sharma, husband of accused Saroj, for talking to him regarding the conduct of his wife i.e. Accused Saroj, but instead of listening to him the accused Satish Sharma came out of his shop and started abusing him and accused also called his son Arun and both of them started beating complainant. In the meantime, accused Saroj also came there and slapped him and twisted his hand and the complainant was rescued by some unknown persons. Thereafter, complainant went back to his house and dialed 100 number, PCR Van Came and took him to DDU Hospital for his treatment and on 20.09.2016 he gave a complaint to PS Palam Village, however, no action was taken which constrained the complainant to file present complaint before this court.
2. In pre summoning evidence the complainant examined himself as CW-1 reiterating the contents of his complainant. The complainant has also relied upon his treatment paper including the MLC NO. 12063/2016 as Ex. CW1/A, Complaint dated 20.09.2016 Ex.CW1/B, complaint dated 22.09.2016 as Ex. CW1/C, Complaint sent to Police Commissioner along with Postal Receipt Mark CW1/D, copy of E Mails to police commissioner i.e. Mark CW1/E, complaint dated 04.05.2017 as Ex. CW1/F. Cr. Case No.10462/2017 Krishan Dabas Vs. Satish Sharma & Ors 3
3. The complainant has also examined CW-2 Dr. Mukesh Kumawat, SR, Accident and Emergency, DDU Hospital who proved the MLC NO. 12063 dated 19.09.2016 of patient Sh. Krishan a Ex. CW2/A. He deposed that as per the MLC, Dr. Pallavi opined the nature of injury as simple caused by blunt weapon. He also proved the Emergency/ casualty Registration Card as Ex. CW1/A and identified the handwriting of concerned Dr. Pallavi on the documents at point A. Thereafter, after conclusion of PSE, the Pre summoning Evidence was closed.
4. After hearing arguments on the point of summoning, the accused No.1, 2 & 3 were summoned for commission of offence U/S 323/506 Part I R/W 34 IPC. Thereafter, accused persons put their appearance and copy of complaint and documents were supplied to accused persons and the matter was listed for pre charge evidence.
5. Thereafter, arguments on charge were heard and Notice for commission of offence U/S 323/506 R/W 34 IPC was framed against the accused persons No. 1 to 3 on 16.08.2023. Thereafter, the matter was listed for post notice evidence and same witnesses were examined in post notice which were examined earlier in Pre charge Evidence. In post notice evidence, the complainant examined CW- 2 Dr. Rajesh Kohli, MS/HOD Accident & Emergency, DDU Hospital, who proved the MLC NO. 12063 Ex. CW2/A and stated that as per the MLC the nature of injuries is simple Injuries caused by blunt weapon. Complainant also examined himself as CW-1 and adopted examination in chief recorded in PSE and he was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons whereby he admitted that accused persons Satish, Saroj and Varun were residing somewhere Cr. Case No.10462/2017 Krishan Dabas Vs. Satish Sharma & Ors 4 else from RZ-241 G, Gali NO.12, Raj Nagar II, Palam Colony, and tenants were residing at the said address. He stated that distance between his house and the shop of accused Satish Sharma is about 100 m to 150 m and accused persons and their family were residing at H. NO. 136 A, Gali No.9, Raj Nagar II, Palam Colony before the year 2004 but in the year 2015, they started residing at RZ- 241 G, Gali No.12, Raj Nagar II, Palam Colony, for construction of their shop and house and again accused persons resided at H. NO. 136 A Gali No.9 for a year. He stated he did not know if accused Satish Sharma has vehicle or not, however, sated that accused owns a scooty.
6. After conclusion of evidence, statements of accused persons namely Satish, Saroj and Varun recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein they denied assaulting the complainant and claimed that they have been falsely implicated in the present matter. They stated that they were having common water submersible connection with accused prior to this case and in the year 2012 - 13 they got it replaced by themselves with new submersible as the old one was not working and complainant had to give his share for the same but the complainant had not given his share for the said repair/replacement and they demanded many times to give his shares from the complainant but he refused. They stated that complainant many times used to take water from the said submersible without our permission after threatening and on their refusal for the same, he use to harass them and threatened them to implicate them in false cases. Complainant has filed this present case to pressurize them to give water connection from the said submersible and also demanded from them Rs. 5 Lakhs to settle the present matter with him. Accused persons also stated that they intend to lead Cr. Case No.10462/2017 Krishan Dabas Vs. Satish Sharma & Ors 5 defence evidence.
7. In their defence all the accused persons examined themselves as DW-1, DW-2 & DW-3. DW-1 Sh. Satish Sharma deposed that the accused used to open valve of the submersible pump after which slight altercation had taken place between them, thereafter, a settlement was arrived with the indulgence of their neighbors namely Satya Narayan and Pummi. He further deposed that his son Varun was not present on 19.09.2016 at 5 PM and he was at his shop at that time. He further stated that the complainant had come outside his shop along with his dog and one pipe in his hand and he had objected the complainant from opening the valve of submersible pump himself after which he got hold of his collar and he freed himself from the complainant, however, he and his wife did not caused any hurt to the complainant. During the cross examination, he admitted that he does not have any proof of settlement with the complainant. He further admitted that the Submersible pump belong to his brother Satbir Kumar.
8. DW-2 Smt. Saroj deposed that on 19.09.2016 her tenant namely Mamta had informed her telephonicaly that she had started the submersible pump but the complainant had opened the valve due to which all the water getting filled in the tank of complainant and not coming in her house. She further stated that around 4 to 5 PM, the wife of complainant in the presence of the complainant was giving abusive to her from her roof then she telephonically informed her husband. She further stated that the complainant then left the house alone with out the dog and then she had followed the complainant, in between her house and the shop of her husband, she saw some fight going on between her husband and the complainant and the complainant had caught the collar and neck of her Cr. Case No.10462/2017 Krishan Dabas Vs. Satish Sharma & Ors 6 husband which he was trying to free and thereafter, the complainant gave a complaint in PS. She further deposed that after 2-3 days a settlement was arrived at in the house of the complainant and matter was settled and no written settlement was executed but it was agreed that the five members of the submersible pump will cut the connection of the complainant. During the cross examination, she admitted that she and wife of Satbir also saw the complainant opening the wall of Submersible pump. Further, she admitted that she resides in her home which is 3-4 gali away from the property in question where submersible pump installed. She further admitted that the valve of the complainant was cut after the day of incident ie. 19.09.2016.
9. DW-3 Sh. Varun deposed that on 19.09.2016 he was not present at the place of incident, however, he was on his shop at H. No. 136 A, Raj NagarII, Palam Colony, Delhi and he got the information of incident through his family members.
10. DW-4 Sh. Satyanarayan who deposed that he was present at the spot when the incident took place and within 1 week both the parties have settled their matter without any agreement and after that he did not know anything about this case. During the cross examination, the witness stated that no one hit anyone and there was only verble altercation. He further stated that there was a settlement before the police between the parties and at that time it was agreed that the complainant will fill his tank when required and the parties will not quarrel with each other in future. Thereafter, after conclusion of defence evidence, the DE was closed vide order dated 13.06.2025. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
Cr. Case No.10462/2017Krishan Dabas Vs. Satish Sharma & Ors 7 FINDINGS:
11. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made before me. After going through the evidences and circumstance of the present case, it emerges that on 19.09.2016 the complainant and accused persons had dispute over the parking by the accused No.1 in front of the house of complainant and accused persons gave beatings to the complainant for which complainant filed his complaint dated 20.09.2016 to the police. Also the reason for dispute between the parties is that the complainant and accused persons were having dispute over the main line of common submersible connection used by them jointly to which accused persons broken intentionally on 03.05.2017 and when the complainant objected to the same, the accused persons started misbehaving, taunting, and threatening the complainant. The complainant notified the matter to the police on 100 number and made a complaint vide DD No. 66 B dated 20.09.2016. In pre summoning evidence, the complainant appeared himself as CW-1 and adopted his testimony during his examination in chief recorded at the time of post charge evidence. However, after going through the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, it emerges that the incident of 19.09.2016 occurred in public place which is residential area and as per the deposition of the complainant he was saved by some unknown persons came at the spot and rescued him. During his cross examination, the complainant
12. In criminal jurisprudence, it is axiomatic that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, and that the guilt of the accused must be established beyond reasonable doubt. The doctrine of "benefit of doubt" is not a license to acquit Cr. Case No.10462/2017 Krishan Dabas Vs. Satish Sharma & Ors 8 on mere technicalities, but it demands that where two inferences are possible-- one consistent with guilt, the other with innocence--the inference favourable to the accused must be adopted. (Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, Gambhir Singh v. State of U.P.)
13. With these foundational precepts in mind, the Court proceeds to scrutinize the evidence adduced in this case, in particular (a) medical evidence, (b) complainant's testimony and documentary proof, and (c) defence evidence including admissions, motive, contradictions, and independent witnesses. The Court will then determine whether the prosecution has discharged its burden in respect of offences under Sections 323 and 506 Part I read with Section 34 IPC.
14. The Medical Legal Certificate (MLC No. 12063/2016) dated 19.09.2016, exhibited as Ex. CW2/A, establishes that the complainant suffered simple injury caused by a blunt weapon. The Emergency/Casualty Registration Card is consistent with timely treatment. Medical witness CW-2 (Dr. Mukesh Kumawat) deposed under oath that the injuries are simple in nature. In post-notice evidence, Dr. Rajesh Kohli reaffirmed the findings, thereby corroborating the complainant's claim of having sustained hurt. This medical evidence is credible, having no contravening expert testimony, and thus satisfies the threshold requirement for establishing hurt under Section 323 IPC.
15. However, the medical evidence is deficient in critical respects. Primarily, it does not disclosed as to what was said by the complainant to the doctor regarding the identify any accused person responsible for the injuries; nor does it specify the precise time or manner in which the injuries were inflicted. Medical evidence confirms that an injury exists, but not who inflicted it, which limb was Cr. Case No.10462/2017 Krishan Dabas Vs. Satish Sharma & Ors 9 used, or whether in the course of a common assault in furtherance of common intention.
16. Further, the complainant (CW-1) has given a detailed oral account i.e. abuse over parking, assault by Satish and Varun, slapping and twisting of hand by Saroj, rescue by bystanders, followed by hospitalization. He has produced several documentary exhibits MLC, hospital records, complaints to the police (various dates), support the timeline and fact of injury. Yet, on close analysis, this testimony is undermined by a number of inconsistencies, gaps, and weaknesses which render the identification and involvement of each accused suspect, creating reasonable doubt.
17. Firstly, there is confusion in identity of the accused who inflicted the injury upon the complainant as it is averred by the complainant that injuries were inflicted upon him by son of accused and he refers to the son as "Arun," and later as "Varun." The complainant himself is not sure about the identity of the accused. On the contrary, the accused Varun when appeared as DW-3 has denied his presence, and the complainant's identification of Varun as participant is weak. The name discrepancy raises concern as to whether the same individual was intended throughout, and whether mistaken identity is at play.
18. Secondly, the complainant admits during cross-examination that the accused persons did not reside continuously at the premises alleged, and that tenants were in occupation. The distances between his house, the shop of accused, and the site of incident i.e. about 100-150 metres are admitted by him. Such admissions compromise the reliability of his assertion that the accused were present, or present in the configurations he states.
Cr. Case No.10462/2017Krishan Dabas Vs. Satish Sharma & Ors 10
19. Thirdly, the complainant has not led any credible independent eyewitness, person unconnected to the accused, who saw the beating or assault. The only witness called by the complainant is effectively hospital staff, who can only speak to treatment, not observation of the assault. While bystanders allegedly rescued him, none seem to have been examined; no contemporaneous statement or deposition from bystanders is on record for the reason best known to the complainant.
20. Fourthly, while multiple written complaints and emails shown persistent pursuit of redress, they do not necessarily establish the core acts alleged: the threats, the physical blows, or the slapping by specific accused persons. These documents evidence the complainant's complaint, but must be judged in conjunction with oral testimony.
21. Thus, although the complainant's testimony and documents provide a skeleton of events, many limbs i.e. pertaining to which accused did what, and exactly when remain unsupported or contradicted. Such lacunae are material because criminal law requires clarity, particularly when burden of proof is heavy.
22. The accused, in their statements under Section 313 and in their defence evidence, present a version materially different from the prosecution's case. They deny physical assault, deny participation by Varun, and plead false implication. Key defence assertions include:
• Dispute over submersible pump and shared water connection; complainant allegedly used water without permission.Cr. Case No.10462/2017
Krishan Dabas Vs. Satish Sharma & Ors 11 • That the complainant demanded Rs. 5,00,000 to settle the matter.
• That only a licence altercation or tussle over a valve or collar took place. No one was physically hurt (or else hurt was not inflicted by the accused persons).
• That after some altercation, the matter was verbally settled between the parties in presence of witnesses and to support the said contentions, the accused examined as DW-4 Sh. Satyanarayan, who is projected as an eye witness.
23. These assertions introduce plausible alternative inference which must be considered as per doctrine of benefit of doubt. The Court notes that defence witness DW-4 Satyanarayan, called by the defence, has deposed that no one saw anyone "hit"; he saw only verbal altercations, and that subsequently a settlement was reached. This neutral or defence-favoring witness is helpful in creating reasonable doubt, especially where the complainant's version on assault is not independently corroborated.
24. Moreover, motive for false implication is fairly clearly established (or at least asserted) by the defense ie. water connection dispute, alleged demand for large sum of money, etc. The existence of a motive does not by itself prove false implication, but requires the prosecution to traverse the motive, disprove it, or show that despite alleged motive, the evidence is still so strong as to reject the possibility of fabrication. In this case, there is limited evidence to rebut motive. No credible proof was led to show that the complainant tried to settle only over water, or that accused had paid the demanded sum, etc. Cr. Case No.10462/2017 Krishan Dabas Vs. Satish Sharma & Ors 12
25. To succeed under Section 506 Part I IPC, it is necessary to show that accused threatened the complainant with injury to person or property, with intent to cause alarm, or thereby caused alarm. Abusive or insulting language by itself is not enough to amount to criminal intimidation unless it is such that a reasonable person in the complainant's circumstances would be put in fear of imminent injury. The complainant has alleged abusive words and threats, but evidence of threats of serious harm, or words that impart fear of injury or property damage, is not satisfactorily established. The defence denies threats of violence. There is no independent witness who heard these threats; none testified to the content, tone, or context with clarity. The gravamen of prosecution's case in respect of intimidation is weak.
26. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that proof must be cogent, credible, consistent. In Gambhir Singh v. State of U.P. the Court held that even in serious offences, accused cannot be convicted unless prosecution links the accused beyond doubt. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Court set out that if there are two possible views, one consistent with guilt and another with innocence, view favourable to accused must be adopted.
27. Turning to whether the complainant has discharged its burden, the cumulative effect of evidentiary weaknesses is significant. While medical evidence proves injury, it fails to identify the perpetrator(s). Complainant's testimony is detailed but suffers from identity confusion, lack of independent corroboration, and admissions that undercut key assertions. Defence presents a plausible alternative version, introduces motive for false implication, and produces neutral witness testimony that undermines the physical assault claim.
Cr. Case No.10462/2017Krishan Dabas Vs. Satish Sharma & Ors 13 Common intention and intimidation are not established beyond reasonable doubt.
28. In criminal cases, such as this, the law does not permit inference based on conjecture, speculation or remote possibility. The standard is exacting. It is insufficient that the complainant narrative is more probable; it must be so established as to leave no reasonable doubt. The evidence here leaves room for doubt--in particular as to whether Varun was involved, whether Saroj physically assaulted, and whether threats rose to legal definition of intimidation. At the same time the MLC shows simple injury caused by blunt weapon however, the complainant has not even testified about any such weapon or object used by any of the accused persons during the alleged incident.
29. Therefore, the only just conclusion is that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in respect of all accused under Sections 323 and 506 Part I read with Section 34 IPC.
30. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and findings, the accused persons namely Satish Sharma, Saroj and Varun stands acquitted for the Digitally signed by offence punishable U/S 323/506 Part I R/W 34 IPC. SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.10.16 15:58:04 +0530 Announced in the open court on (SAURABH GOYAL) this day i.e. 16th October 2025 Judicial Magistrate First Class-01 Dwarka, New Delhi It is certified that this judgment contains 13 pages and each page bears my Digitally signed by signatures. SAURABH SAURABH GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2025.10.16 15:58:08 +0530 (SAURABH GOYAL) Judicial Magistrate First Class-01 Dwarka, New Delhi Cr. Case No.10462/2017 Krishan Dabas Vs. Satish Sharma & Ors