Delhi District Court
Ramkala Yadav vs State on 4 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. BHAVNA KALIA, LD. ASJ/SPECIAL
JUDGE (NDPS)-01, DWARKA COURTS (SOUTH-WEST),
NEW DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 300/2025
CNR NO. DLSW01-005510-2025
In the Matter of:
SMT. RAMKALA YADAV,
W/o Sh. Balwant Singh Yadav,
R/o C-16, Bharat Vihar,
Opp. Pillar No. 882-B,
NSIT Dwarka, New Delhi-11078
....Appellant/complainant
VERSUS
1. STATE
2. SMT. SHEELA DEVI
W/o Late Sh. Ram Kishan,
3. SMT. SEEMA
W/o sh. Mukesh Kumar,
4. SH. MAHESH KUMAR
S/o Late Sh. Ram Kishan,
5. SH. BIJENDER VATS.
S/o Late Sh. Ram Kishan,
6. SMT. SUMAN
W/o Late Sh. Dinesh Kumar.
CA No. 300/2025 Page 1 of 11
ALL ABOVE ACCUSED NO. 2 TO 6
R/O H. NO. 54, VPO KAKROLA,
NEW DELHI -110078
...Respondents/accused persons
Date of Institution of the Petition : 01.07.2025
Date of Arguments : 13.04.2026
Date on which judgment was pronounced : 04.05.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment /final order dt. 07.04.2025 passed by the court of Ld. JMFC- 06, South-west, Dwarka Courts.
2. Vide the impugned judgment, the Ld. Trial Court had acquitted the aforesaid respondents/accused persons for the offence punishable U/s 447/506/34 IPC.
3. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment stating that the Ld. Trial Court did not properly consider the facts of the case and the evidence as well as the documents and also did not considered deeply the statements deposed by the witnesses produced by the prosecution. It is further submitted that in the cross- examination, nothing was there for damaging the case of the complainant and for favouring the defence given by the accused persons. It is submitted that all prosecution witnesses supported the case of the complainant. It is further submitted that Ld. Trial Court CA No. 300/2025 Page 2 of 11 wrongly held that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused persons for commission of offences mentioned in the charge- sheet. It is further submitted that Ld. Trial Court failed to consider that the accused persons were correctly identified by the complainant and by her husband. It is further submitted that other prosecution witnesses also identified the accused persons, who committed the offence. It is further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court only considered the statement of those witnesses, who were declared hostile, though, it is the well settled law of land that the accused persons may be punished on the basis of the statement of one witness only, who supported the story of the prosecution. Ld. Addl. PP for the State endorsed the views of the complainant.
4. Ld. Counsel for the respondents/accused persons submitted that the order passed by the Ld. Trial Court was passed in a reasonable manner considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence laid by the witnesses.
5. Impugner judgment/final order under challenge has been perused along with TCR.
6. Briefly stating, the case of the prosecution is that on 18.06.2013 at about 06.00 pm, all accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, had committed criminal trespass in the house of the complainant Ram Kala Yadav at C-16, Bharat Vihar, Opposite Pillar No. 882-B, NSIT, Dwarka, New Delhi and had also criminally CA No. 300/2025 Page 3 of 11 intimidated her by threatening to kill her, thereby committing offences punishable u/s 447/506/34 IPC.
7. Section 447 IPC provides punishment for criminal trespass as defined u/s 441 IPC. Section 441 IPC states that when the person enters into or upon property in possession of another person with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property or having lawfully entered into the property remains there to do the above-mentioned acts is said to have committed criminal trespass.
8. Section 506 IPC provides punishment for criminal intimidation as defined u/s 503 IPC. As per Section 503 IPC, criminal intimidation is said to have been committed when one person threaten another with injury to his person, reputation or property with intent to cause alarm.
9. Section 34 IPC provides punishment for common intention.
10. Thus, to prove the offence u/s 447 IPC, the element of possession is important and to prove offence u/s 506 IPC, the element of threat and alarm are important.
11. As per the case of the complainant, in the month of March 2012, she had purchased a built up property measuring 50 sq. CA No. 300/2025 Page 4 of 11 yards at C-16, Bharat Vihar, Opposite Pillar No. 882-B, NSIT, Dwarka, New Delhi from Deepak Goel and used the same as store house for one year. She stated that the house needed some repair work and thus was being renovated by her. She stated that on 14.06.2013 at about 04.00 pm, accused Sheela Devi, her son Mahesh, one photographer and some other persons whom she did not know, came to her house and started taking photographs of the same. She stated that she objected on which the accused persons pushed her and started abusing her. She stated that thereafter all the accused persons left her house and on the next day she received notice that one civil suit had been filed against her in the Court. She further stated that on 17.06.2013, she appeared in Dwarka Court but accused persons did not get any stay in civil suit. She stated that on 18.06.2013, accused persons called the PCR and renovation work was stopped by the police. She stated that on the same day at about 06.00 pm, accused Sheela Devi, Seema Devi, Suman, Mahesh, Bijender, Raj Kumari, Dinesh and some other unknown persons came to her house carrying small lathi. She stated that accused persons cornered her in one room and started threatening her to beat and falsely implicate her. She stated that her husband, namely, Sh. Balwant Singh intervened to stop the accused persons but they threatened him also. She stated that all the lady accused persons went to the labourers who were working at her house and threatened them not to work there and also threw away their tools. They also threw away the construction material. She stated that her husband took photographs of the accused persons and thereafter they called on 100 number. She said that on 20.06.2013, she gave her CA No. 300/2025 Page 5 of 11 written complaint to SHO, PS Dwarka but no action taken and thereafter she filed an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C on which FIR was directed to be registered. The statement was given by complainant and she was examined as PW-1. The Ld. Trial Court has in the impugned judgment held that the statement of the complainant was not supported by other prosecution witnesses beyond reasonable doubt.
12. Before proceeding on the merits, it is important to state that in the judgment in State of Gujarat v. Ismail Ahmedbhai Lula (Vora Patel), 2026 CRI.L.J.322, it has been held that Appellant court should not upturn the finding of acquittal unless appreciation of evidence is illegal. Thus, it is settled law that once the accused has been acquitted by the Ld. Trial Court, the appellant court should not interfere unless there is grave injustice or illegality.
13. In order to consider the merits of the case in appeal, the evidence of the witnesses and all the documents have been gone through. There is no doubt that there is some property dispute between the complainant and the accused persons for which one civil suit is pending since the year 2013 itself. Coming to the specific incident dated 18.06.2013, complainant in her statement as PW-1 stated that on 18.06.2013, accused persons called the PCR and PCR reached the spot. She said that the renovation work was stopped by the police and after she showed them the chain of documents of her plot, they left the spot after an hour. She further stated that on the same day at about 06.00 pm, accused persons came to her house and the incident CA No. 300/2025 Page 6 of 11 happened as stated above. Thus, it is clear from the statement of PW-1 that on the date of the incident, initially the PCR was called by the accused persons and the work was stopped by the police. Thereafter, the incident is stated to have happened at 06.00 pm. As per statement of PW-1 and DW-1, there is full blown dispute between the parties as to the owner of the property. PW-1 in her cross-examination admitted that the plot C-16 was situated on the land of Bhumidar Ram Kishan and that all the accused persons except Raj Kumari were all family members of Ram Kishan and were also legal heirs of Ram Kishan. As per her statement, in March 2012, she had purchased the 50 sq. yard at C-16 from one Deepak Goel. PW-2 stated that he had purchased plot no. C-16 from Babulal Rohilla in 1995 and constructed a 100 sq. yard house there where he was residing with his family. He said that the said plot was in the name of his mother Smt. Ganga Devi. He said in the year 2004-05, Delhi Metro acquired 50 sq. yards of the said plot and the remaining 50 sq. yard, he sold to Deepak Goel. He further stated that complainant/PW-1 might have purchased the same from one Deepak Goel. He supported the case of the complainant with regard to the incident. During his cross-examination, PW-2 denied all the suggestions regarding his ownership of the property and also denied the suggestion that he never sold the plot to Deepak Goel who further sold it to PW-1. He rather said that Deepak Goel had sold the plot to PW-1 in the year 2012 and he had witnessed the said chain. He further said that he had witnessed the incident on 18.06.2013 as he was standing outside the plot at that time. He further said that accused Sheela, Suman and Seema came to the spot and went inside the plot CA No. 300/2025 Page 7 of 11 while accused Mahesh and Bijdender stood outside the plot. The same is partly supported by statement of PW-3 who stated that on 18.06.2013, at about 04.00 pm, three ladies and some gents came inside the house and stopped the work and also threatened the labourers that if they did not stop the work, they would hit them. Similar statement as statement of PW-3 was made by PW-4 Ramji Lal who was working as rajmistri at the site. These three witnesses, PW-2 PW-3 and PW-4 are independent witnesses and their testimony is to be read in the light of evidence of PW-1 and PW-5 (Balwant Singh). PW- 1 has also stated that accused persons came to the spot on 18.06.203 but has improved upon her statement to say that she was cornered in one room by all the accused persons who threatened to bit her and threatened to falsely implicate her in many cases. She said that when her husband/PW-5 came to stop the accused person, they threatened him also. She further said that all the lady accused persons went to the labourers working there and threw away their tools and construction material there. Pw-5 has not made any statement regarding cornering of PW-1 and he has stated that accused persons threatened his mistri and labourers and also him and his family members to kill them and falsely implicate them in other cases.
14. Considering the statement of all the witnesses, when read together, no doubt that there are some discrepancies and contradictions which must be considered by the Court. It is settled law, that in criminal cases the prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt for any conviction to take place. Considering the statement of CA No. 300/2025 Page 8 of 11 PW-1 and PW-2, it is prima facie established that PW-1 might have been in possession of the property as no positive evidence has been brought forward by the accused persons to suggest that they were in possession of the property. Considering the same, still it is to be seen whether the incident happened or not as stated by the prosecution witnesses. Again considering the statement of PW-1 and other prosecution witnesses, it is evident that the accused persons were present at the spot on the date of the incident but it is still to be considered whether any offence was committed by accused persons or not. With regard to this specific issue, it is evident that there is doubt created as all witnesses have stated differently regarding the happening of the incident. PW-1 has stated that she was cornered by all the accused persons who threatened to beat her and falsely implicate her. PW-2 has specifically stated in his testimony that accused Sheela, Suman and Seema came to the spot and went inside the plot while accused Mahesh and Bijdender stood outside the plot. Thus, there is discrepancy in statement of witnesses regarding who all had trespassed into the property. In view of the discrepancy regarding this specific point which is one of the main ingredients (entering of accused persons into property in possession of another), it cannot be said that prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, doubt is created as to which all accused persons had trespassed into the property which entails them to be acquitted u/s 447 IPC. Further considering the statement of PW-1 and PW-5, PW-1 stating that she was threatened by accused persons that they would beat her and implicate her in false cases and PW-5 stating that accused CA No. 300/2025 Page 9 of 11 persons threatened to kill him and his family and implicate them in false cases, there is again doubt created regarding the nature of the threat. The labourers present at the spot i.e. PW-3 and PW-4 stated that the accused persons threatened that they would hit them with bricks if work is not stopped. Thus, the nature of threats is not the same and witnesses have stated differently regarding the same. No statement has come on record to show how they were even alarmed which is one of the main ingredients of Section 506 IPC. Considering the same, accused persons are entailed to be acquitted u/s 506 IPC. Considering the acquittal as mentioned above u/s 447/506 IPC, it is obvious that Section 34 IPC is no longer attracted.
15. In the opinion of the Court, there is nothing wrong with the impugned judgment/final order given by the Ld. Trial Court in the impugned judgment.
16. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned judgment/final order has been rightly passed by the Ld. Trial Court. Hence, the impugned judgment/final order is upheld. With these observation, the appeal is disposed of.
17. In view of the above observations the court find no infirmity in the impugned order of the Ld. Trial court, hence appeal filed by appellant is hereby dismissed.
18. Trial Court Record be sent back along with copy of this CA No. 300/2025 Page 10 of 11 order and appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court
Digitally
signed by
BHAVNA
BHAVNA KALIA
today i.e on 04th May, 2026 KALIA Date:
2026.05.04
16:45:10
+0530
(BHAVNA KALIA)
Spl. Judge (NDPS)-01South-West District,
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi
CA No. 300/2025 Page 11 of 11