Delhi District Court
State vs Vikas Milal on 21 May, 2025
THE COURT OF SH. UDBHAV KUMAR JAIN,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
STATE v. VIKAS MITTAL
FIR No. -: 195/2018
Police Station -: Madhu Vihar
Section(s) -: 287/338 IPC
Cr. Case No. -: 4091/2021
1. CIS number : DLSH020042322021
2. Name of the complainant : Jitender Kumar
S/o Sh. Lalji
R/o 17/93, Kalyanpuri, Delhi.
3. Name of the accused, : Vikas Mittal
parentage & residential S/o Late Sh. Prem Sagar Mittal
address R/o 3/6, Raj Nagar, PS Kavi Nagar,
Ghaziabad, UP.
4. Offence complained of or : 287/338 IPC
proved
5. Date of commission of : 27.06.2018
offence
6. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
7. Final Judgment : Acquittal
8. Date of judgment/order : 21.05.2025
Date of Institution: 14.06.2021
Date of Reserving Judgment: 21.05.2025
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment: 21.05.2025
Duration: 3 years 11 months 7
days
Argued by: Sh. Kapil Sharma, Ld. APP for the State.
Ms. Kaushal Mittal, Ld. Counsel for accused.
Udbhav Digitally signed
by Udbhav
Kumar Kumar Jain
Date: 2025.05.21
Jain 16:08:34 +0530
FIR No. 195/2018 State vs. Vikas Mittal Page no. 1 of 8
JUDGMENT
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution against the accused is that on 27.06.2018 at 11.00 AM at basement of the factory no. 473, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi, accused being the owner of the said factory, knowingly or negligently omitted to take such order with the machinery in his possession to guard against any probable danger to human life from such machinery and negligently asked the injured/complainant Jitender Kumar to grease the machine and on account of the said direction, the injured got panicked and in haste crushed his right hand fingers. As such, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence under sections 287/337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC") for which FIR No. 195/2018 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 it was found that accused Vikas Mittal committed the alleged offence and the doctor opined that the injury sustained by the victim was grievous in nature. On culmination of the investigation, chargesheet against the present accused namely Vikas Mittal for the alleged commission of offences u/s 287/338 IPC was filed. Ld. Predecessor of this Court took cognizance of the offence u/s 287/338 IPC vide order dated 14.03.2022. After taking cognizance of the offence, accused was summoned 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, this Court vide order dated 08.06.2023 framed charge against accused Vikas Mittal Digitally signed by FIR No. 195/2018 State vs. Vikas Mittal Udbhav Udbhav Jain Kumar Page no. 2 of 8 Kumar Date:
Jain 2025.05.21
16:08:42
+0530
for the offence punishable u/s 287/338 IPC, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
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 PW1 Jitender Kumar DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.PW1/A Statement of complainant ADMITTED DOCUMENTS u/s 294 Cr.P.C.Ex. A1 FIR No. 195/2018
Ex. A2 Certificate u/s 65B I.E. Act. Ex. A3 MLC NO. 8021/2018 dated 27.06.2018
5. Sh. Jitender Kumar (PW1) deposed that stated that he had studied up to the 6th class. In the year 2018, he was employed as a helper in M/s RV Cables, Factory No. 473, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi. He further stated that he did not know anything else regarding the present case.
5.1.Since the witness was resiling from his earlier statement, he was cross- examined by Ld. APP for the State. During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that on 27.06.2018, at about 09:00 AM, he had come to the said factory and that around 11:00 AM, the factory owner, Vikas, had instructed him to apply grease to a wire-making machine. He also denied that he had refused to do so, stating it was the responsibility of the Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No. 195/2018 State vs. Vikas MittalKumar Date: Page no. 3 of 8 Jain 2025.05.21 16:08:50 +0530 foreman, but that the accused had forcefully directed him to proceed due to the absence of a trained foreman in the factory. (He was confronted with his earlier statement marked Ex. PW-1/A, from portion A-A1, where it was so recorded.) The witness further denied the suggestion that, acting on the accused's instructions, he applied grease to the running machine and that, during this act, his right hand became caught in the chain garari, leading to crushed fingers and injuries. (He was confronted with the statement marked Ex. PW-1/A from portion B-B1.) He also denied the suggestion that a person named Dinesh, working in the factory, had stopped the machine, after which he was taken to the hospital. (Confronted with portion C-C1 of Ex. PW-1/A.) The witness denied that he was deliberately giving false testimony or that he had been won over by the accused or had compromised the matter with the accused outside the court. He stated that the police had taken his thumb impression on the complaint marked Ex. PW-1/A at point D. He acknowledged that he knew the accused, who was present in court, as he had worked in the accused's factory.
5.2.On being cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused, the witness admitted that he had sustained injuries while operating a washing machine. He confirmed that he was medically examined at MAX Hospital under MLC No. 8021/2018 and had informed the attending doctor that he received the injuries while running the washing machine. He affirmed that his present deposition was being made voluntarily and without any fear or pressure.
6. The whole case of prosecution was dependent on the complainant Jitender Kumar PW-1 as he was the material witnesses in the present case who not only saw the alleged commission of offence but was also the Digitally signed by FIR No. 195/2018 State vs. Vikas Mittal Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain Page no. 4 of 8 Kumar Date:
Jain 2025.05.21
16:08:56
+0530
victim/injured however, PW-1 turned hostile to the case of prosecution. 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 Jitender Kumar has not supported the version of the prosecution, no fruitful purpose will be served to examine other witnesses as neither of them 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.
7. 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."
8. Right to speedy trial is constitutionally guaranteed Fundamental Right of the accused. The present case pertains to an FIR of the year 2018 and continuing the trial any further, when it is clear that prosecution can never hope to prove its case against the accused, 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 Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav FIR No. 195/2018 State vs. Vikas Mittal Kumar Kumar Jain Page no. 5 of 8 Date:
Jain 2025.05.21 16:09:02 +0530 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.
STATEMENT AND DEFENCE OF ACCUSED
9. Since no incriminating evidence was brought forth by the prosecution, recording of statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC was dispensed with. Accused chose not to lead evidence in his defence.
ARGUMENTS
10. I have heard the Ld. Substitute APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material available on record.
POINT OF DETERMINATION
11. 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 when the complainant/eyewitness/material witness has turned hostile.
REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
12. 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.
Digitally
signed by
FIR No. 195/2018 State vs. Vikas Mittal Udbhav Udbhav
Kumar Jain Page no. 6 of 8
Kumar Date:
Jain 2025.05.21
16:09:09
+0530
13. The complainant/material witnesses/eyewitness of the prosecution i.e., PW-1 turned hostile in the present case on every aspect. It is pertinent to note that under Indian law, the evidence of hostile witnesses is not discarded completely. The legal 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. "
14. 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/material witness/eyewitness PW-1 who saw the accused committing the alleged offence. Neither presence of accused 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.
15. 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 Digitally signed by Udbhav Udbhav Kumar Jain FIR No. 195/2018 State vs. Vikas Mittal Kumar Page no. 7 of 8 Date:
Jain 2025.05.21 16:09:16 +0530 ingredients of offence as the complainant/material witness turned hostile. Thus, accused Vikas Mittal is entitled to benefit of doubt.
CONCLUSION
16. In view of the above discussion, the accused Vikas Mittal is hereby found not guilty. Accordingly, accused Vikas Mittal 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., 21.05.2025.
Udbhav Digitally by Udbhav Kumar Jain signed Kumar Date:
Jain 2025.05.21 16:09:23 +0530 (UDBHAV KUMAR JAIN) JMFC-04:SHD:KKD This judgment contains 8 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
FIR No. 195/2018 State vs. Vikas Mittal Page no. 8 of 8