Delhi District Court
State vs Rajinder Singh on 14 March, 2026
DLWT020192032018
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-06,
DISTRICT-WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY: SH. GAURAV SINGAL, D.J.S.
State vs. Rajinder Singh
F.I.R. no. 86/18
P.S. - Mundka
U/s 283/337/338/304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
JUDGMENT
1) Case ID : 33/2019
2) The date of commission of offence : 27.02.2018
3) The name of the complainant : SI Manoj Chahar
4) The name & parentage of accused : Rajinder Singh
S/o Munshi Ram
H. No. 307, Baba Haridas
Colony, Tikri Border,
Delhi.
5) Offence involved : U/s 283/337/338/304A IPC
6) Ld. APP for the State : Sh. Sandeep Kumar
7) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8) Final order : Acquittal
9) Judgment reserved on : 16.02.2026
10) Judgment announced on : 14.03.2026
State Vs. Rajinder Singh FIR No. 86/2018 1 of 27
BRIEF FACTUAL POSITION:
1. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 27.02.2018 at about 8:30 AM at H No. 307, Baba Haridas Colony, Tikri Border, Delhi, accused Rajinder Singh, being the owner of the said house, omitted to take any precautions for the building, which was in dangerous condition, and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code. (hereinafter to be referred to as IPC).
2. Secondly, on the above-said date, time, and place, the chajja of the above-mentioned house fell, due to which injury was caused to Upasna and Naina, grievous injury was caused to Damini, and death was caused to Bimlesh, and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 337/338/304A of the IPC.
3. Investigation was conducted into the allegations. Upon completion, a chargesheet was filed. The cognizance was taken against the offence on 04.01.2019, and, accordingly, he was summoned. Compliance of section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as Cr.P.C) was done by providing a copy of the chargesheet and annexed documents to the accused person.
4 Upon finding a prima facie case against the accused, a formal notice for the offence punishable under section 283/337/338/304A IPC, vide order dated 11.10.2019, was framed against the accused person, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs. Rajinder Singh FIR No. 86/2018 2 of 27 EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION:
5. A statement under Sec. 294 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. In which the accused person has admitted the following:
a. FIR NO. 86/2018 as Ex. P1.
b. Certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1882, as Ex P2. c. DD. NO. 28A as Ex. P3.
d. DD. NO. 18A as Ex. P4.
e. Post-Mortem Report dated 28.02.2018 as Ex. P5. f. MLCs bearing no. 153/18, 154/18, 155/18 and 156/18 as Ex. P6 to Ex. P9.
6. To substantiate the allegations, the prosecution has examined 04 (four) witnesses.
(i) PW-1 Rakesh deposed that on 27.02.2018, he alongwith his family were residing at H.No. 307 Baba Haridass Colony Tikri Border on rent. The name of his landlord was Rajender. PW-1 correctly identified the accused. On that day when PW-1 was working in a factory situated at Haryana, his cousin Chottu informed him over telephone that Chajja of his above said house had fallen down and due to which his bhabhi Smt. Bimla sustained injuries which scummed to death. PW-1 along with his brother went to mortuary and identified the dead body of deceased Bimla Devi.
(ii) PW-2 Vimlaseh deposed that on 27.02.2018 he alongwith his family was residing at H.No 307 Baba Haridass Colony Tikri Border on rent. PW-2 correctly identified the accused. PW-2 further reiterated the State Vs. Rajinder Singh FIR No. 86/2018 3 of 27 testimony of PW-1. There he came to know that chajja of house had fallen down and due to which his wife and his daughters sustained injuries and they had already been shifted in the Hospital at Rohtak by landlord Rajender. PW-2 went to the hospital. There wife of PW-2 had expired. PW-2 along with his brother went to mortuary and identified the dead body of deceased Bimla Devi vide identification statement which is Ex. PW2/A. After the postmortem, dead body of wife of PW-2 was handed-over to PW-2 by police officials vide handing over memo of dead body which is Ex.PW2/B.
(iii) PW-3 Ms. Upasana deposed that on 27.02.2018 he alongwith his family was residing at H.No 307 Baba Haridass Colony Tikri Border on rent. On that day when her mother Smt. Bimla Devi was going to her duty and PW-3 along with her younger sisters namely Naina and Damini was going to their room, suddenly Chajja of above said rented house had fallen down and PW-3 along with mother and sisters sustained injuries. PW-3 sustained injuries on her leg and head. PW-3 correctly identified the accused. PW-3 further reiterated the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2. Accused had shifted them to the hospital. Mother of PW-3 expired in the hospital.
(iv) PW-4 Inspector Manoj deposed that on 27.02.2018 he was posted as SI at PS Mundka. On that day he received the DD entry no. 18 A. He went to the Civil Hospital Bhadurgarh, Haryana. There he came to know that injured persons had already been referred to PGI Rohtak. PW-4 had collected the MLC of all injured persons. Thereafter, PW-4 went to the PGI Rohtak. There he came to know that one of the injured State Vs. Rajinder Singh FIR No. 86/2018 4 of 27 namely Bimla, during medical examination, had expired. No eye witness was found in the hospital. PW-4 returned to the place of incident i.e. H.No. 307, Baba Haridass Colony, Tikri Border Delhi. There he inquired about the case from the resident of the locality and came to know Chajja of the above said house, being old structure, had fallen down and due to which some persons had got injured. Prima facie it was reveled that low quality building material was being used in the construction of that Chajja. On the basis of DD entry and MLCs of injured persons, PW-4 endorsed DD entry no. 18A already Ex.P-4 vide rukka which is Ex.PW4/A. Thereafter, PW-4 got the FIR registered. He prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW4/B. He had clicked the photographs of the spot. The photographs are now Ex.P-1 to P-9. PW-4 got conducted the post- mortom of the deceased Bimla. PW-4 had examined injured Upasana and recorded her 161 statement. PW-4 had also examined other witnesses the charge-sheet before the concerned court. He had collected the Post mortem report of deceased Bimla and made the same part of record. He had collected the document i.e. Copy of GPA and Electricity Bill showing the ownership of accused Rajender over house in question. The seizure memo qua the electricity bill and GPA are Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D. The electricity bill is Ex.P-X and the copy of GPA, receipt and bill Ex.P-Y (Colly). During the course of investigation, PW-4 had arrested the accused Rajender which is Ex.PW4/E. PW-4 correctly identified the accused.
7 After the examination of all the witnesses, evidence of the prosecution was closed, and the statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 07.07.2025, wherein he State Vs. Rajinder Singh FIR No. 86/2018 5 of 27 refuted the allegations levelled against him. The accused pleaded innocent and false implication. And he opted not to lead any defence evidence.
8. Final arguments were led on behalf of both parties.
8.1. The learned assistant public prosecutor for the state has argued that on a combined reading of prosecution evidence, offences punishable under sections 283/337/338/304A of the IPC stand proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused person.
8.2 On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused person has argued that there is no legally admissible evidence against the accused person and that the accused person has been falsely implicated in the present matter. It is, further, argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused person beyond a reasonable doubt, and hence, the accused person is entitled to be acquitted.
9. Submissions have been considered, and the record of the case has been carefully perused.
RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW:
10. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to refer to relevant provisions of law.
I. Section 283 of the IPC:- Danger or obstruction in public way or line of navigation.
State Vs. Rajinder Singh FIR No. 86/2018 6 of 27 Whoever, by doing any act, or by omitting to take order with any property in his possession or under his charge, causes danger, obstruction or injury to any person in any public way or public line of navigation, shall be punished, with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees.
II. Section 337 of the IPC:- Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.
Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
III. Section 338 of the IPC:- Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.
Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
IV. Section 304(A) of the IPC:- Causing death by negligence.
Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.
State Vs. Rajinder Singh FIR No. 86/2018 7 of 27 V. Burden of proof :- It is a well-established principle of criminal law that the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may' have to 'must' have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility, then the benefit of doubt necessarily must go to the accused. The principle is rooted in the maxim that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution has the bounden duty to discharge the initial onus before it can shift onto the other party. The prosecution must stand on its own. It cannot rely on the weaknesses or absence of the defense's case to establish guilt.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
11. To prove an offence u/s 283 of IPC, the prosecution is required to prove (1) that it must be done by an act or omission with property under their charge; (2) that this must occur in a public way or line of navigation; (3) that the accused must cause danger, obstruction, or injury; and (4) that it results in harm to a person using that public space.
12. At the very outset, the accused person, in his statement under Sec. 294 of Cr.P.C., has admitted the following documents: Ex. P1 to Ex. P9 without admitting the contents of the same.
13. To establish the ingredient at (2), the prosecution has furnished a site plan, which is Ex. PW4/B, bearing only the signature of the IO at point A. The relevancy of the site plan is enumerated in sections 7 and 9 of the evidence act.
State Vs. Rajinder Singh FIR No. 86/2018 8 of 27 13.1 On this, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tori Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh 1962 AIR 399, 1962 SCR (3) 589, AIR 1962 SUPREME COURT 399, 1962 MADLJ(CRI) 259, 1962 3 SCR 580, 1962 (1) SCJ 367, 1962 ALLCRIR 159, ILR 1962 1 ALL 397 has observed that;
In the first place, the map itself is not to scale but is merely a rough sketch and therefore one cannot postulate that the spot marked on the map is in exact relation to the platform. In the second place, the mark on the sketch-map was put by the sub-inspector who was obviously not an eyewitness to the incident. He could only have put it there after taking the statements of the eyewitnesses. The marking of the spot on the sketch map is really bringing on record the conclusion of the Sub-inspector on the basis of the statements made by the witnesses to him. This in our opinion would not be admissible in view of the provisions of s. 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure., for it is in effect nothing more, than the statement of the sub-inspector that the eye-witnesses told him that the deceased was at such and such place at the time when he was hit. The sketch-map would be admissible so far as it indicates all that the Sub-inspector saw himself at the spot; but any mark put on the sketch map based on the statements made by the witnesses to the Sub-inspector would be inadmissible. in view of the clear provisions of s. 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as it will be no more than a statement made to the police during investigation.
State Vs. Rajinder Singh FIR No. 86/2018 9 of 27 13.2 The Honorable High Court of Calcutta expressed the same view again in Ibra A Kanda v. Emperor, where it was held that any information derived from witnesses during a police investigation and recorded in the index to a map must be proved by the witnesses concerned and not by the investigating officer, and that if such information is sought to be proved by the evidence of the investigating officer, it would clearly violate Section 162 of the Cr.P.C..
13.3 In the circumstances, these marks on the map based on statements made to the sub-inspector are inadmissible under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. and cannot be used to find any argument as to the improbability of the deceased being hit on the part of her body where she was actually injured, if she was standing at the spot, which is allegedly a public way or line of navigation marked on the site plan. Furthermore, there is nothing in the witnesses' testimony to suggest that it was extremely possible that the deceased was hit on that portion of the body, leaving aside the site plan and points noted on it by the sub-inspector.
13.4 Along with the site plan, the prosecution has provided photographs, which are Ex. P-1 through P-9 taken by the IO. The IO has also failed to prove on record the photographs supposedly taken by him, and, admittedly, there is no suitable certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The other alleged injured, Naina and Damini, were not included in the investigation. Apart from the photographs, nothing on record indicates that the area was a public path or line of navigation. Even the aforementioned images have State Vs. Rajinder Singh FIR No. 86/2018 10 of 27 not been fully proven on record, and they contain no date, time, or mention of the address or location from which the photographs were shot.
13.5 Admittedly, no public witness was joined during the investigation. However, it is not the case of the prosecution that no public witnesses were available. It was stated by PW4 that he received knowledge about the incident from the resident of the locality. Despite this, not a single public person joined in the proceeding. Unassumingly, if they have refused to join the proceedings, in that case, it becomes important to revisit the provisions of section 100(4) of Cr.P.C and section 187 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. IO has failed to explain why their names and residence were not recorded or why notice has not been issued to them, as per the aforementioned discussed provisions. When a statutory provision mandates that an independent witness has to be joined in the investigation, the IO is duty bound to comply with the same. At least he should make sincere efforts in this regard. If someone refuses to join the investigation without any justifiable reason, proper notice u/s 187 IPC should be given to him. Merely stating that the public person refused to join the investigation is not sufficient to serve the purpose of the prosecuting agency. A stereotypical statement of non-availability or non-agreement on behalf of a witness will not be sufficient to inspire the faith of the Court in the story of the prosecution. Non-availability of any independent witness/evidence raises suspicion and serious doubt over the case of the prosecution. Furthermore, no CCTV, State Vs. Rajinder Singh FIR No. 86/2018 11 of 27 photography, or videography of the spot is produced on record to substantiate the allegation against the accused person. More so, when the IO failed to even record the name and details of such a person and failed to take any required steps in terms of Sections 37 and 42 of Cr.P.C. Reliance may be placed on the case of Anoop Joshi vs. State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as under:
"It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that sincere efforts have been made to join independent witnesses".
13.6 The absence of any independent witness does not per se vitiate the entire case of the prosecution if the same can be duly explained. Reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tahir v. State (Delhi) 1996 3 SCC 338 wherein it was observed that although there is no rule of evidence that conviction cannot be based on the sole testimony of police officials, prudence demands more careful scrutiny of the testimonies of police officials, as they may be considered to be interested in the outcome of the case. The rule of prudence requiring independent witnesses is born out of this careful scrutiny and requires that in cases where the timing of the offence and surrounding circumstances indicate that it was fairly possible for the investigating officer to procure independent witnesses, he failed to do so. As a result, the prosecution has failed to prove that the alleged place of the incident was actually a public way.
14. In the context of demonstrating the ingredient at (3), the State Vs. Rajinder Singh FIR No. 86/2018 12 of 27 prosecution failed to summon the doctor who performed the MLC or the doctor who performed the post-mortem to testify. The prosecution took no steps to prove the MLCs on record. It is trite law that MLC is only corroborative in nature and not a substantive piece of evidence. The purpose is to corroborate the facts of the case of the prosecution and not to be the basis of it.
14.1 On this, In Kamlesh v. State (Crl.A. 481/2019), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed that:-
"The MLC is authenticated record of injuries which prepared in regular course of business by he doctor and can be relied upon by the court, even when the doctor who prepared the MLC is not examined in the court and record proved by any of the other doctor. The hospital cannot be expected to keep track of the doctor after he leaves the hospital. Neither the doctor is expected to keep the hospital informed about his/her whereabouts. Merely because the doctor prepared the MLC is not personally examined, the MLC cannot be disbelieved. Proving of MLC by a colleague doctor who identifies the handwriting and signatures of the doctor who examined the patient or by an administrative staff of the hospital who identify the signature of the doctor is sufficient and good proof and MLC cannot be doubted."
14.2 In Om Prakash Singh @ Pappu Sapata v. State of Uttarakhand, 2022 SCC Online Utt 270, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized State Vs. Rajinder Singh FIR No. 86/2018 13 of 27 that, "in the absence of the examination of the radiologist and the X-ray film, the opinion if the doctor cannot be taken to have proved the guilt of an accused under Section 325 IPC beyond reasonable doubt".
14.3 In view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the prosecution has failed to establish the existence of injuries sustained by the deceased and PW3. The medical evidence was not proven to the satisfaction of the court.
15. To prove the claim against the accused and establish the element at (1) and (4), the prosecution has produced one injured witness, PW3.
15.1 The testimony of PW3 is crucial because she can describe what transpired on the day of the incident. She stated that she was heading to their room with her mother (deceased) and sisters, Naina and Damini. Suddenly, the chajja of the rental house fell on them, causing injuries. She had injuries to her leg and head. The accused moved them to the hospital. She had accurately identified the accused in the court. During cross-examination, she stated that the accused had made no mistakes. She went on to say that the building/house seemed to be old and that the neighbors told her so.
15.2 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short, the "Evidence Act"), does not prescribe any particular age as a determinative factor to treat a witness as a competent one. On the contrary, Section 118 of the State Vs. Rajinder Singh FIR No. 86/2018 14 of 27 Evidence Act envisages that all persons shall be competent to testify, unless the court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them or from giving rational answers to these questions because of tender years, extreme old age, or disease--whether of mind or any other cause of the same kind. A child of tender age can be allowed to testify if he has the intellectual capacity to understand questions and give rational answers thereto.
15.3 In Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra (1997) 5 SCC 341, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that as long as a child witness is found to be competent to depose, i.e., capable of understanding the questions put to it and able to give rational answers, the testimony of such witness can be considered as evidence in terms of Section 118 of the Evidence Act, irrespective of their tender age or absence of any oath. The only additional factor to be considered is that the witness must be found to be reliable, exhibiting the demeanor of any other competent witness, with no likelihood of having been tutored. It further clarified that there is no requirement or condition that the evidence of a child witness must be corroborated before it can be considered, and rather the insistence of any corroboration is only a rule of prudence that would depend upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. The relevant observation reads as under:
"5. [...] A child witness if found competent to depose to the facts and reliable one such evidence could be the basis of conviction. In other words, even in the absence of oath the evidence of a child witness can be considered under Section 118 of the Evidence Act provided that such witness is able to State Vs. Rajinder Singh FIR No. 86/2018 15 of 27 understand the questions and able to give rational answers thereof. The evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The only precaution which the court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one and his/her demeanour must be like any other competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored. There is no rule or practice that in every case the evidence of such a witness be corroborated before a conviction can be allowed to stand but, however as a rule of prudence the court always finds it desirable to have the corroboration to such evidence from other dependable evidence on record."
(Emphasis supplied) 15.4 Similarly, in Pradeep v. State of Haryana reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SCC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that witness under 12-years of age yet, as per Section 118 of the Evidence Act, it is the duty of a trial judge to conduct a preliminary examination before recording the evidence of the child witness to ascertain if the child is able to understand the questions put to him and that he is able to give rational answers to the questions put to him.
15.5 In Ratansinh Dalsukhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat reported in (2004) 1 SCC 64, this Court explained that although child witnesses are considered as dangerous witnesses as they are pliable and liable to be influenced easily, shaped and moulded yet it is an accepted norm that if State Vs. Rajinder Singh FIR No. 86/2018 16 of 27 after careful scrutiny their testimony is found to inspire confidence and truthful, then there is no obstacle in accepting the evidence of such child witness.
15.6 In Panchhi v. State of U.P. (1998) 7 SCC 177 , the Honorable Supreme Court held that the evidence of a child witness should not be outrightly rejected but the evidence must be evaluated carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell him and an easy prey to tutoring.
16. Two other witnesses, PW1 and PW2, testified that they were told about the occurrence over the phone. The body of the deceased in the mortuary was identified by them. The identification statement of PW2 is Ex. PW2/A. During cross-examination, both witnesses testified that they were not eyewitnesses. A cousin of PW1, namely chottu, informed PW1 about the incident, and PW1 told PW2.
16.1 It is trite law that hearsay evidence is not admissible in the eyes of the law. Because it lacks the dependability and credibility that come from direct testimony and cross-examination of witnesses, such evidence is typically ignored in court proceedings.
17. In the case of Vadivelu Thevar vs. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 614 (V 44 C 91 Sept.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"In view of these considerations, we have no hesitation in holding that the contention that in a murder case, the court should insist upon plurality of witnesses, is much too broadly State Vs. Rajinder Singh FIR No. 86/2018 17 of 27 stated. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, has categorically laid it down that "no particular number of witnesses in any case, be required for the proof of any fact".
The legislature determined, as long ago as 1872, presumably after due consideration of the pros and cons, that it shall not be necessary for proof or disproof of a fact, to call any particular number of witnesses. In England, both before and after the passing of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there have been a number of statutes as set out in Sarkar's Law of Evidence-9th Edn., at Pages 1100 and 1101, forbidding convictions on the testimony of a single witness. The Indian Legislature has not insisted on laying down any such exceptions to the general rule recognized in Section 134 quoted above. The section enshrines the well recognized maxim that "Evidence has to be weighed and not counted". Our Legislature has given statutory recognition to the fact that administration of justice may be hampered if a particular number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence, where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If the legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime would go unpunished. It is here that the discretion of the presiding judge comes into play. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and State Vs. Rajinder Singh FIR No. 86/2018 18 of 27 the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the Court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution. Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-established rule of law that the Court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact."
17.1 It has been highlighted in Sunil Kumar vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2003) 11 SCC 367 that:
"As a general rule, the Court can and may act on his testimony of single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on a sole testimony of single witness. This is the logic of Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Evidence Act"). But, if there are doubts about the testimony the Courts will insist on corroboration. It is for the Courts to act upon the testimony of witnesses. It is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence State Vs. Rajinder Singh FIR No. 86/2018 19 of 27 Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise."
17.2 In Mahesh and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2011) 9 SCC 626, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
"There is no necessity for prosecution to multiply witnesses to prove and establish prosecution case. There is no requirement in law of evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to proved something. Evidence has to be weighed and not to be counted."
17.3 In Amar Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 19 SCC 165, it has been held:
"As a general rule, the Court can and may act on the testimony of single eye witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. This is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the courts will insist on corroboration. It is not the number, the quantity but quality that is material. The time honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence is having ring of truth is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise"
State Vs. Rajinder Singh FIR No. 86/2018 20 of 27 17.4 Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act has categorically laid it down that no particular number of witnesses in any case be required for the proof of any fact. The legislature has mandated, presumably after due consideration of the pros and cons, that it shall not be necessary for proof or disproof of a fact to call any particular number of witnesses. The section enshrines the well-recognized maxim that "Evidence has to be weighed and not counted." The legislature has given statutory recognition to the fact that administration of justice may be hampered if a particular number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. If the legislature were to insist upon a plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime would go unpunished. If testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. As the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution. The Court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. As a general rule, the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. But, if there are doubts about the testimony, the courts will insist on corroboration. The Court can and may act on the testimony of a single eye witness provided he is wholly reliable.
17.5 Reference may be made to the recent judgement of the High Court State Vs. Rajinder Singh FIR No. 86/2018 21 of 27 of Delhi in Raj Kumar @ Bheema vs. State of NCT of Delhi, in which it is observed that, " 51. It is tried that the evidence of an eyewitness must be of sterling quality and unimpeachable character. It should not only inspire the confidence of the court but also be of such a nature that is acceptable at its face value."
17.6 In the case of State of "U.P. v. Naresh & Ors. (2011) 4SCC 324"
the principles with regard to appreciation of an injured witness was propounded as below:− " 27. the evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is genuinely considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lands support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would like or want to led his actual assailants go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for rejection of his evidence."
State Vs. Rajinder Singh FIR No. 86/2018 22 of 27 17.7 After perusing the testimony of PW3, the court finds that there is nothing in her testimony that raises doubt against her. However, the testimony remained silent on many aspects. Her testimony is not conclusive in nature.
18. PW4 is the investigating officer of the case. According to his deposition, he was unable to locate any eyewitnesses at the hospital. He got knowledge about the incident after asking local persons. Additionally, it was stated that, from the surface, it seems that low- quality materials were employed in the construction. He took pictures of the location, created the site plan, and collected the postmortem report. The accused has produced Ex. PW4/C and PW4/D, along with Ex. P-X and Ex. P-Y (colly), to prove his ownership of the property in question.
18.1 During cross-examination, he deposed that he had not documented the accounts of Damini and Naina. Additionally, no expert inspection was carried out to determine the cause of the incident. The certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act was not filed with the photographs. The site plan does not bear the signature of any public witness.
18.2 The investigation in the present matter has been done in a very careless manner, and enough evidence has not been collected by the investigating officer to support the case of the prosecution.
18.3 Reference is made to Hema v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2013 10 SCC 192 and State of Tamil Nadu by Inspector of Police v. N. Suresh Ranjan State Vs. Rajinder Singh FIR No. 86/2018 23 of 27 and Others 2014 11 SCC 709: 2014 3 SCC (Cri) 529 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the defect in the investigation cannot be a ground for acquittal; however, if the lapse goes to the prosecution case and prejudices the accused. Then, the court is under legal obligation to scrutinize the evidence with greater care. In Dhanaj Singh v. State of Punjab (SCC p. 657, para 5) held:
"In the case of a defective investigation the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective."
18.4 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh and Others AIR 2003 SC 1164 has observed that If the prosecution case is established by the evidence adduced, any failure or omission on the part of the investigating officer cannot render the case of the prosecution doubtful.
18.5 The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Yogesh @ Bunty v. State NCT of Delhi, 2014 SCC Online Del 1042, has held that:
The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been State Vs. Rajinder Singh FIR No. 86/2018 24 of 27 negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation."
19. After analyzing the above, it is clear that, in addition to establishing the possession or charge of the accused over the property in question, the prosecution has failed to establish every other ingredient, including the most important ingredient, i.e., the act or omission with respect to the property under his charge or possession. Reading the provision clearly implies that the accused must have committed an act or omission. And the act or omission must endanger, obstruct, or injure any person. The testimony of the witnesses has provided no explanation for an act or omission by the accused. The prosecution has not presented any meaningful evidence to establish a link between the action of the accused and the damage. The testimony of PW3 solely describes what happened at the spot. The case of the prosecution remained silent on additional depositions regarding the technical aspects as to the leading cause of the falling down of the chajja. The material from the fallen chajja was never sent for expert evaluation, casting doubt on the quality of the material used in construction.
State Vs. Rajinder Singh FIR No. 86/2018 25 of 27 19.1 After considering the preceding discussion, the court believes that the prosecution has completely failed to show the guilt of the accused person under Section 283 of the IPC. Thus, the culpability of the accused under sections 337/338/304A remains unsubstantiated. The court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to discharge its duty in shifting the onus of proof on the other party.
20. Consequently, the accused, Rajinder Singh S/o Sh. Munshi Ram, is acquitted of the offences punishable under section 283/337/338/304A of the IPC. GAURAV Digitally signed by GAURAV SINGAL SINGAL Date: 2026.03.16 17:18:39 +0530 Pronounced in the open (GAURAV SINGAL) Court on 14.03.2026 JMFC-06 (West), Tis Hazari Courts Delhi This judgment contains 27 signed pages.
ANNEXURE #
State Vs. Rajinder Singh FIR No. 86/2018 26 of 27
Prosecution Name of Witness Description
Witnesses.
PW-1 Rakesh Body identification witness
PW-2 Vimlaseh Body identification witness
PW-3 Upasana Complainant. Eyewitness
PW-4 Inspector Manoj IO of the case
Exhibit Description of The Witness who proved
No. Document or attested the document
1. Copy of FIR admitted U/s 294 Cr.P.C Ex.P-1
2. Site Plan PW-4
3. DD No. 28A admitted U/s 294 Cr.P.C Ex.P-3
4. Certificated U/s 65B admitted U/s 294 Cr.P.C ExP-2
5. Seizure memo PW-4
6. Arrest memo PW-4
7 PM Report admitted U/s 294 Cr.P.C Ex P-5
8. DD No. 18A admitted U/s 294 Cr.P.C Ex.P-4
Note # As per direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) Vs. State of Gujarat Crl. Appeal No. 2973 of 2023 State Vs. Rajinder Singh FIR No. 86/2018 27 of 27