Delhi District Court
State vs Nitin Kumar on 9 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT; DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
PRESIDED BY: MS. SWATI GUPTA-1
Cr. Case No. 10497/2022
In the matter of :
State Vs. Nitin Kumar
FIR No. 517/2021
PS : Dwarka Sector-23
U/s: 323/341/506 IPC
1. CNR No. of the case : DLSW0202484342022
2. Date of commission of offence : 24/25.12.2021
3. Date of institution of the case : 23.08.2022
4. Name of the Complainant : Raju Sharma
S/o Sh. Param Kumar Sharma
R/o Holi Chowk Pochanpur,
Mukesh Ka Makan, Dwarka
Sector-23, Dwarka, New Delhi.
5. Name, parentage and address of : Nitin Kumar
accused persons S/o Sh. Subhash Chandra
R/o Nav Sansad Vihar, Sector-22,
Dwarka, Sector-23, Dwarka,
Delhi.
6. Offence charged : U/s 323/341/506 IPC.
7. Plea of accused : Accused not pleaded guilty.
8. Date of final arguments : 09.05.2025.
9. Date of judgment : 09.05.2025.
10. Final Order : Accused stands acquitted u/s
State Vs. Nitin Kumar
FIR No. 517/2021 Page No.1 of 4
323/341/506 IPC
JUDGMENT
1. Present case emanates from complaint filed by one Sh. Raju Sharma, on the basis of which aforesaid FIR was registered u/s. 323/341/506 IPC. Upon filing of chargesheet u/s. 323/341/506 IPC, cognizance of the offence was taken; accused was summoned; copy of chargesheet was supplied to him; and charge was framed u/s. 323/341/506 IPC against accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. In order to prove the charge against the accused, prosecution examined PW-1 Ct. Ankur who attended the PCR call, PW-2 Deshraj who proved MLC No. 10705 dated 25.12.2021 and PW-3 Retd. ASI Vikram who is the IO of the present case and deposed regarding investigation. Prosecution also summoned the complainant Sh. Raju Sharma, however, summons issued to him were received back unserved despite several efforts and even despite issuance of summons through DCP concerned. As the complainant remained unserved despite efforts, consequently he was dropped from the list of witnesses. No other witness remains to be cross examined and PE was closed. Since nothing incriminating came on record against the accused, recording of statement of accused was also dispensed with.
3. I have heard the brief submissions addressed by the Learned APP for State and by the accused and carefully perused the documents on record.
State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR No. 517/2021 Page No.2 of 4
4. In the present case, case of the prosecution, as per the complaint is that complainant Raju Sharma was working as Guard in Nav Sansad Vihar, Sector-22, Dwarka, Plot No. 4, Dwarka, Delhi. On 24/25.12.2021, at about 3.15 AM, the accused Nitin Kumar came in a drunkun state, when complainant was sitting in the Guard Room along with the associate guard and the main gate of the society was closed. Accused Nitin Kumar started abusing the complainant. On hearing the horn of the car, complainant opened the society gate and accused parked his car half inside and half outside the gate. Thereafter, accused started beating the complainant and abusing him. Thereafter, accused left and came back again and again beat him and pressed his private part and gave him blows on his face, eyes, forehead, hold his hair and held him by his neck and hit him in the mirror. As per complaint accused has also beaten up associate guard Ashish Das who called the police. Accused had also threaten to kill the complainant. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR was registered.
5. In the case at hand, the complainant is the star witness as he is the eye witness as well as victim. However, he has not been served and has been dropped. In the absence of his testimony, and absence of any other eye-witness, the prosecution has failed to place the accused at the scene of crime. At this stage, it must also be noted that one Ashish Das and Jai Sharma are also named in the complaint as eye witnesses, however, as per the charge sheet both of them could not be traced out after the incident and even the complainant could not gave their whereabouts. Hence, they have not been cited as witness in the charge sheet.
State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR No. 517/2021 Page No.3 of 4
6. I have gone through the testimonies of PW-1 to PW-3. The said witnesses have proved formal documents such as site plan, MLC, Rukka, arrest memo, which are not sufficient to prove the allegations against the accused in the absence of any eye witness. Apart from complainant/eye witness, no other witness is cited by the prosecution. IO/PW-3 also admitted in his cross examination that he did not record statement of the residents of the said society; no society members had seen or heard the incident as the incident had occurred in the night; he did not enquired from the nearby residents regarding the incident; no CCTV cameras were found installed near the spot. Besides, the statement of complainant recorded by the investigating officer u/s 161 Cr.P.C regarding commission of said offence are also highly insufficient to prove the alleged offences.
7. In view of the discussion above, the charge against the accused has not been proved, and he is entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly, accused Nitin S/o Sh. Subhash Chandra stands acquitted of offences punishable under Section 323/341/506 Indian Penal Code, 1860. Announced in the open court SWATI Digitally signed by SWATI GUPTA on 09.05.2025. GUPTA Date: 2025.05.09 16:44:27 +0530 SWATI GUPTA-01 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (SW) Dwarka Courts:New Delhi State Vs. Nitin Kumar FIR No. 517/2021 Page No.4 of 4