Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd Zahid on 2 April, 2026
Cr. Case No. 3559/2020
STATE Vs. MOHD ZAHID
FIR No. 144/2017
PS Darya Ganj
Sections: 288/337/427 IPC
1
IN THE COURT OF DR. RAJ KUMAR SINGH
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-05
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Cr. Case No. 3559/2020
STATE Vs. MOHD ZAHID
FIR No. 144/2017
PS Darya Ganj
Sections: 288/337/427 IPC
DLCT020074692020
JUDGMENT
(a) CIS No. 3559/2020 (b) Date of offence 19.06.2017 c) Complainant Mohd. Faizan s/o. Tahsin (d) Accused Mohd. Zahid @ Pappu s/o. Mohd. Yasin r/o. H.No.366, Gali Masjid Dhobiyan, Darya Ganj, Delhi (e) Offence 288/337/427 IPC (f) Plea of accused Not pleaded guilty (g) Final Order Acquitted (h) Date of Institution 22.07.2020 (i) Date of arguments 02.04.2026 (j) Date of judgment 02.04.2026
1. The present case arises out of FIR No. 144/2017, PS Darya Ganj, registered in relation to an incident alleged to have occurred on 19.06.2017 at about 4:00 PM at H. No. 1671/72, Kucha Dakhni Rai, Darya Ganj, Delhi. The prosecution case, in substance, is that an old chajja/balcony fell on the road Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case No. 3559/2020 STATE Vs. MOHD ZAHID FIR No. 144/2017 PS Darya Ganj Sections: 288/337/427 IPC 2 during demolition or repair work, that the said work was being carried out under the supervision of accused Mohd. Zahid @ Pappu, and that owing to his failure to take proper safety measures, one person namely Mohd. Azam sustained injuries and two vehicles, namely a scooty bearing registration no. DL-12-SB-8607 and a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-7S-AM-7860, suffered damage.
2. As per the charge-sheet, on receipt of DD No. 23A, SI Pritam Singh along with Ct. Sunil reached the spot and found that the old chajja of the building had fallen and the aforesaid vehicles were lying in damaged condition. It is further the case of the prosecution that the injured had already been removed to hospital. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer collected the MLC of injured Mohd. Azam from Lok Nayak Hospital, where the history recorded was that a heavy object had fallen on his head near the spot. The complainant Mohd. Faizan is stated to have later met the Investigating Officer at the spot and got his statement recorded, on the basis of which the rukka was prepared and the FIR came to be registered for offences under Sections 288/337/427 IPC.
3. The charge-sheet further alleges that during investigation the accused disclosed that he used to take repair contracts of old buildings and that the work at property no. 1671/72 had been undertaken by him, and that while getting the old chajja removed through labourers, he had failed to make RAJ KUMAR arrangements for public safety, on account of which the old SINGH Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case No. 3559/2020 STATE Vs. MOHD ZAHID FIR No. 144/2017 PS Darya Ganj Sections: 288/337/427 IPC 3 chajja fell into the gali, causing injuries to one person and damage to the two vehicles. It is also stated that the result on the MLC reflected simple injury.
4. Cognizance of the offences was taken by the Court on 09.10.2020 and the accused was summoned. Upon appearance of the accused, after hearing arguments on the point of notice/charge and on perusal of the charge-sheet, statements under Section 161 CrPC and accompanying documents, notice for offences under Sections 288/337/427 IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. On the same date, the accused made a statement under Section 294 CrPC read with Section 330 BNSS and admitted only the genuineness of certain documents, namely copy of FIR as Ex. AD-1, certificate under Section 63 BSA as Ex. AD-2, endorsement on rukka as Ex. AD-3, DD No. 23A as Ex. AD-4, DD No. 24A as Ex. AD-5, and MLC of Mohd. Azam along with X-ray as Ex. AD-6. He specifically did not admit the allegations contained therein. In view of the said admission, formal witnesses at serial nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 in the list of witnesses were dropped.
6. The matter thereafter came up for prosecution evidence. The record shows that despite repeated opportunities, the complainant Mohd. Faizan and injured Mohd. Azam did not enter the witness box. On 17.03.2025, injured Mohd. Azam remained absent despite service. The complainant was present RAJ KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR Cr. Case No. 3559/2020 STATE Vs. MOHD ZAHID FIR No. 144/2017 PS Darya Ganj Sections: 288/337/427 IPC 4 on that day, but at his request, he was discharged unexamined for that day and was directed to be summoned again. Notice was also directed to be issued to the Investigating Officer for clarification regarding the ownership of the damaged motorcycle.
7. On 03.09.2025, both the complainant and the injured again remained absent. On 09.01.2026, complainant Mohd. Faizan was absent despite service and Mohd. Azam could not be served as per report. Summons through the DCP concerned were thereafter directed to be issued. On 01.04.2026, both these material witnesses again remained absent despite service through the DCP concerned. The request of the prosecution for coercive steps against them was declined, though liberty was reserved to the prosecution to examine them if their presence could be secured in accordance with law.
8. On 02.04.2026, when the matter was again taken up for prosecution evidence, SI Pritam Singh was absent despite service. The Court observed that the material witnesses, namely the complainant and the injured, had already been dropped after repeated absence despite service and that there was no other eyewitness to the incident. In those circumstances, coercive steps against SI Pritam Singh were declined on the ground that his testimony would only be formal in nature and would not serve any fruitful purpose. There being no other witness, prosecution evidence was Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case No. 3559/2020 STATE Vs. MOHD ZAHID FIR No. 144/2017 PS Darya Ganj Sections: 288/337/427 IPC 5 closed.
9. Thereafter, statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC read with Section 281 CrPC and Sections 316 and 351 BNSS was recorded. The accused denied the allegations, claimed innocence, stated that he had been falsely implicated and chose not to lead defence evidence. Final arguments were then heard.
10. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused and have carefully perused the entire record. Ld. APP for the State submitted that the FIR stood registered promptly, the DD entries and medical record stood admitted by the accused as to their genuineness, the occurrence itself was not in dispute, and the medical papers demonstrated that Mohd. Azam had sustained injuries in the incident. It was submitted that the surrounding circumstances were sufficient to hold the accused responsible.
11. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case as neither the complainant nor the injured nor the Investigating Officer nor any public witness entered the witness box. It was argued that the admitted documents only dispensed with formal proof and did not establish the truth of their contents. It was further contended that the essential ingredients of Sections 288, 337 and 427 IPC remained unproved and that the accused was entitled to acquittal.
12. The prosecution was required to establish its case beyond Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case No. 3559/2020 STATE Vs. MOHD ZAHID FIR No. 144/2017 PS Darya Ganj Sections: 288/337/427 IPC 6 reasonable doubt. The burden never shifted. It is equally well settled that admission of genuineness of a document under Section 294 CrPC does not amount to admission of the truth of every statement contained therein. The document can be read in evidence as a document, but the facts stated therein must still be proved by substantive evidence, unless otherwise admissible.
13. For an offence under Section 288 IPC, the prosecution was required to prove that the accused was engaged in pulling down or repairing a building and that he knowingly or negligently omitted to take such order with that building as was sufficient to guard against probable danger to human life from the fall of that building or any part thereof. For an offence under Section 337 IPC, it was required to prove that the accused did an act rashly or negligently so as to endanger human life or personal safety of others and thereby caused hurt to Mohd. Azam. For an offence under Section 427 IPC, the prosecution was further required to prove commission of mischief within the meaning of Section 425 IPC and consequent loss or damage amounting to fifty rupees or more.
14. In the present case, the prosecution has not led any oral evidence of eye witnesses. No owner of the property where the demolition or repair work was allegedly going on has been examined. No labourer allegedly working at the site has been examined. No independent public witness has been examined. Thus, the entire prosecution case is left resting Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case No. 3559/2020 STATE Vs. MOHD ZAHID FIR No. 144/2017 PS Darya Ganj Sections: 288/337/427 IPC 7 only on the admitted documents and the allegations contained in the charge-sheet.
15. The admitted DD entries do show that information was received at the police station regarding collapse of a chajja near the spot. The FIR also shows that the complainant made allegations regarding negligence on the part of the contractor and owner. However, neither the DD entries nor the FIR constitute substantive proof of the role of the accused. The FIR could have been used for corroboration or contradiction if its maker had entered the witness box. In the absence of the complainant's testimony, its contents cannot by themselves prove the incident in the manner alleged or the culpability of the accused.
16. The medical record does establish that Mohd. Azam was examined at Lok Nayak Hospital on 19.06.2017 and that he had suffered injuries which were opined to be simple in nature. The MLC and hospital papers note a history of fall of a heavy object on the head near the spot and record swelling and tenderness in the occipital region and other complaints. The NCCT Head report reflects a normal study with no evidence of any bleed or bony injury. These documents certainly support the fact that Mohd. Azam suffered simple injuries on that day.
17. However, proof of injury by itself is not sufficient to bring home the charge under Section 337 IPC. The prosecution was further required to prove, through reliable evidence, that the RAJ KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case No. 3559/2020 STATE Vs. MOHD ZAHID FIR No. 144/2017 PS Darya Ganj Sections: 288/337/427 IPC 8 said injury was the result of a rash or negligent act attributable to the accused. That vital link is entirely missing. The history recorded in the MLC is merely the history furnished to the doctor and does not, by itself, amount to proof of the role of the accused. In the absence of the testimony of the injured or any eyewitness, the Court is left with no substantive evidence as to how exactly the incident occurred, who was supervising the work, what precautions were omitted, and in what manner the act of the accused caused the injury.
18. The charge under Section 288 IPC suffers from the same difficulty. There is no legal evidence on record to prove that the accused had in fact taken the contract for repair or demolition of the building in question or that he was supervising the labourers at the relevant time. The charge- sheet contains such an allegation and also mentions an alleged disclosure by the accused during investigation. But the charge-sheet is not evidence. Further, any admission allegedly made by the accused to the police during investigation cannot be treated as substantive evidence against him, except to the limited extent permitted by law, which is not attracted here.
19. Even assuming that some repair or demolition work was indeed going on at the property, the prosecution has led no evidence to show what safety measures were required in the facts of the case, what precautions were actually omitted, Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case No. 3559/2020 STATE Vs. MOHD ZAHID FIR No. 144/2017 PS Darya Ganj Sections: 288/337/427 IPC 9 whether any barricading was absent, whether the public had been warned, or whether the vehicles had been left under the falling portion with the knowledge of the accused. These are all matters which required proof through oral evidence. In its absence, it would not be safe to record a finding of guilt under Section 288 IPC.
20. The charge under Section 427 IPC is still weaker. In the first place, mischief under Section 425 IPC requires intention to cause, or knowledge of likelihood of causing, wrongful loss or damage to property. The prosecution case itself is founded on negligence in the course of repair work. There is no material to suggest that the accused intended to damage the vehicles or had the knowledge contemplated by Section 425 IPC. On the prosecution's own version, the case is one of alleged negligence, not one of deliberate or knowing damage amounting to mischief.
21. In the second place, even the factum of damage in legally admissible form remains unproved. The complainant, said to be the owner of the scooty, was never examined. Ownership of the motorcycle itself had required clarification from the Investigating Officer, but no such clarification ever came on record through evidence. There is no proved estimate of loss, no photographs proved in evidence, no mechanical inspection report, and no witness to depose about the extent of damage. In such circumstances, the ingredients of Section 427 IPC cannot be said to have been established. RAJ KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by RAJ KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case No. 3559/2020 STATE Vs. MOHD ZAHID FIR No. 144/2017 PS Darya Ganj Sections: 288/337/427 IPC 10
22. The Court is conscious that criminal trials do not fail merely because independent public witnesses have not been examined, if otherwise the prosecution succeeds in proving its case through trustworthy evidence. The difficulty here is of a different nature. In the present matter, there is complete absence of substantive ocular evidence. The very witnesses who could have spoken about the occurrence, the role of the accused, the manner of demolition, the absence of safety measures, the injury to the victim, and the damage to the vehicles, have not been examined at all.
23. It is also true that the occurrence of some untoward incident at the spot is reflected from the DD entries and from the medical examination of Mohd. Azam. Yet, criminal liability cannot rest on conjecture. The Court cannot presume, merely because an accident took place, that the accused must necessarily have been the person legally responsible for it or that he must necessarily have acted rashly or negligently in the manner alleged. The prosecution was required to bridge that gap by admissible evidence. It has failed to do so.
24. The record also reflects some uncertainty in relation to the damaged motorcycle, to the extent that clarification regarding its ownership had to be sought from the Investigating Officer. That clarification never came on record. Such deficiency assumes significance particularly when the prosecution had chosen to invoke Section 427 IPC. In the absence of proof regarding ownership and damage, the Court cannot return a Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case No. 3559/2020 STATE Vs. MOHD ZAHID FIR No. 144/2017 PS Darya Ganj Sections: 288/337/427 IPC 11 finding of guilt for mischief.
25. The prosecution case, therefore, may raise suspicion that the incident occurred during building repair work and that the accused may have been associated with that work. But suspicion, however strong, can never substitute proof. In criminal law, the Court must be satisfied on the basis of legally admissible evidence that each ingredient of the offence stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. That standard has not been met in the present case.
26. Insofar as Section 288 IPC is concerned, there is no substantive evidence to prove that the accused was the person pulling down or repairing the balcony or that he knowingly or negligently omitted to take sufficient safety measures. The offence under Section 288 IPC is therefore not proved.
27. Insofar as Section 337 IPC is concerned, though the simple injury of Mohd. Azam is borne out from the medical papers, there is no reliable evidence to connect that injury with any rash or negligent act of the accused. The offence under Section 337 IPC is therefore also not proved.
28. Insofar as Section 427 IPC is concerned, the prosecution has failed to prove the necessary ingredients of mischief, the ownership and actual damage of the vehicles in admissible evidence, and the requisite mental element under Section 425 IPC. The offence under Section 427 IPC is likewise not proved.
29. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the Digitally RAJ signed KUMAR by RAJ SINGH KUMAR SINGH Cr. Case No. 3559/2020 STATE Vs. MOHD ZAHID FIR No. 144/2017 PS Darya Ganj Sections: 288/337/427 IPC 12 considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused Mohd. Zahid @ Pappu committed the offences punishable under Sections 288, 337 and 427 IPC. The accused is accordingly acquitted of all the said charges.
30. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
31. Judgment be uploaded as per rules. RAJ Digitally signed by KUMAR Announced in open court SINGH RAJ KUMAR SINGH on 02.04.2026 (Dr. Raj Kumar Singh) Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/Central Delhi/02.04.2026 Note: This judgment contains 12 (Twelve) pages and having my RAJ KUMAR Digitally signed signature on each page. SINGH by RAJ KUMAR SINGH (Dr. Raj Kumar Singh) Judicial Magistrate First Class-05/Central Delhi/02.04.2026