Delhi District Court
State vs Zahid on 12 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ISRA ZAIDI: JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-04, NORTH EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
JUDGMENT
Cr. No. of the case 463338/2015
CNR Number DLNE02-000157-2009
FIR Number 46/2009
Police Station Khajuri Khas
Name of the Complainant/Informant Sh. Chauhan Singh
Name of the Accused, his Zahid
parentage and address S/o Sh. Mohd. Zahir
R/o Gali No. 2, B Block, Shri Ram
Colony, Khazuri Khas, Delhi.
Date of Commission of offence 27.02.2008
Date of institution 20.07.2009
Offences complained of U/s. 304-A IPC
Offences charged of U/s. 304-A IPC
Plea of the Accused Pleaded not guilty
Date of final arguments 12.03.2026
Date of pronouncement of Judgment 12.03.2026
Final Order Acquitted
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
01. Succinctly stated the facts discernible from the present complaint are that on 27.02.2008 at 8.30 p.m. at Gali No. 8, E Block, Shri Ram Colony, Delhi, Zahid (hereinafter, referred to as accused) did not take proper care with the generator and left the wires of generator open/naked due to which one person namely Rahul electrocuted from the said naked wires of generator and caused death of Rahul by doing the said rash and negligent act. Thereafter, an FIR was registered against the accused under sections 304-A IPC.
ISRA FIR No. 46/2009 State Vs. Zahid Page 1 of 13 ZAIDI Digitally signed by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.03.12 16:01:58 +0530 COURT PROCEEDINGS
02. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under sections 304-A IPC was filed before the court against the accused. The then Learned Magistrate took cognizance on 20.07.2009 and accused was summoned to face the trial. On his appearance in the Court, copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to him as per norms. Thereafter, vide order dated 17.07.2012, notice under sections 304-A IPC was framed against the accused Zahid to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was listed for PE.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
03. In order to prove and substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined following witnesses.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES S. No. Witness number Name of the witness
1. PW1 Sh. Chauhan Singh
2. PW2 Sh. Mukesh Kumar
3. PW3 Sh. Chhotey Lal
4. PW4 Sh. Ishwar Chand
5. PW5 ASI Paltu Singh
6. PW6 Sh. Manohar Lal Dhyani
7. PW7 Sh. Sonu Singh
8. PW8 Retired SI Rajender Singh DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE PROSECUTION S. No. Ex./Mark Nature of documents
01. Ex. PW1/A Statement of complainant Digitally signed FIR No. 46/2009 State Vs. Zahid ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: Page 2 of 13 2026.03.12 ZAIDI 16:05:08 +0530
02. Ex. PW1/B Seizure Memo of Generator
03. Ex. PW1/C Arrest Memo of accused
04. Ex. PW1/D Personal Search Memo of accused
05. Ex. PW6/A Mechanical Inspection report of generator
06. Ex. PW7/A Dead Body Identification Memo
07. Ex. PW8/A Rukka
08. Ex. PW8/B Site Plan
09. Ex. PW8/D Bail Bond on which accused was released on bail
10. Ex. PW8/E Request for postmortem of deceased Rahul
11. Ex. P-1 Photographs of the spot STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S. 294 Cr.PC
04. The accused had admitted the following documents without admitting its contents and hence the examination of the concerned witnesses were dispensed with.
Exhibited No. Nature of Documents Ex. A-1 FIR No. 46/2009 Ex. A-2 PM Report No. 239/2009 dated 01.03.2009 STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S. 313 Cr.PC
05. The accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C examined on 21.01.2026. The accused stated that the deceased was electrocuted from the naked electric wires and not from the generator and he was merely working as labourer. Accused did not lead evidence in his defence despite opportunity.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
Digitally
signed by
FIR No. 46/2009 State Vs. Zahid ISRA ISRA ZAIDI
Date:
Page 3 of 13
ZAIDI 2026.03.12
16:05:14
+0530
06. The court heard final arguments on behalf of the both the parties on 06.03.2026. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the case against the accused is false and frivolous and has prayed that accused be acquitted of the offence charged. Learned APP for the state submitted that accused be convicted of the offences under the above-mentioned sections as there is sufficient evidence on record to convict the accused. This court has heard the submissions of Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. The court has also diligently gone through the charge-sheet, documents, evidence recorded and the entire material on record.
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUST DECISION OF THE CASE
07. In the instant case, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had to prove the following ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 304A IPC beyond reasonable doubt. It is apt to quote the following sections :
Section 304A 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".
08. Section 304A IPC punishes any rash or negligent act of a person which causes death of any person not amounting to culpable homicide. It has to be determined if the act of the accused was rash or negligent. Concurrently, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ras Bihari Singh vs. NCT of Delhi (2017 SCC Online Del 12290), while explicating the ingredients of the offence(s) under section 279/304A IPC inter alia observed as under;
"9. To constitute an offence under section 279/304A IPC, it must be shown that the person was driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. Criminal negligence or criminal rashness is an important element of the offence under section 279 IPC."
Digitally signedFIR No. 46/2009 State Vs. Zahid
ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI
Date: Page 4 of 13
2026.03.12
ZAIDI 16:05:20
+0530
09. In a road accident case, to convict a person for the offence punishable under section 304A IPC, the prosecution is required to bring on record the basic requirement of the said Section i.e. "Rash or Negligent Act" with following conditions:
(i). There must be death of the person in question.
(ii). The accused must have caused such death.
(iii). Such act of the accused was rash or negligent and that it did not
amount to culpable homicide.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION`
(i) Whether the death of Rahul was the direct and proximate result of such rash or
negligent act on part of the accused?
(ii) Whether the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt?
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUST DECISION OF THE CASE
10. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond 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.
11. PW1 Sh. Chauhan Singh, in his examination in chief deposed that on 27.02.2009, marriage of daughter of Chotey Lal namely, Babita was fixed and accused Zahid was hired by Chotey Lal for tent and lighting. He deposed that on that day at about 08.30 p.m., when he reached behind the tent at gali no. 8, E Block Shri Ram Colony, he saw one person being electrocuted with live electric wire and that person fell down due to electrocution. He deposed that accused Zahid had installed Digitally signed by FIR No. 46/2009 State Vs. Zahid ISRA ISRA ZAIDI Date: Page 5 of 13 ZAIDI 2026.03.12 16:05:26 +0530 tent generator there and the wire connected with generator was live and no protection was provided by accused Zahid. He further deposed that due to electrocution that boy got unconscious and he took that boy to GTB Hospital where the doctor declared that boy dead. He deposed that accused Zahid was negligent and due to his negligence, that boy was electrocuted and died as the accused had not provided any safety and the wire was naked. He further deposed that police came at GTB hospital and recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A and thereafter, he returned to the spot and shown the police the place of incident, on which, police prepared the site plan. He further deposed that police seized the generator and prepared seizure memo Ex. PWI/B. He further deposed that accused Zahid was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PWI/C and conducted his personal search vide personal search memo Ex. PW1/D.
12. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW1 testified that the deceased was lying about 10 meters away from the generator. He testified that generator was running at that time, when he reached at the spot. He could not say if the single phase generator can only cause jurk to any person but cannot electrocute any person by causing fatal injuries. He did not had any personal knowledge regarding the particulars of terms and conditions between the accused and Chotey Lal. He denied all the suggestions, put by Ld. Defence Counsel.
13. PW2 Mukesh Kumar, in his examination in chief deposed that on 27.02.2009, there was a generator installed at the spot for marriage ceremony and near the said Generator, naked live wires of electricity were kept and he came to know that a person namely Rahul was electrocuted by the said wires. He deposed that on the directions of the IO, he took the photographs of the spot.
14. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW2 did not remember the exact time when he reached at the spot. He admitted that he found one electric pole at the spot and electric wire was going towards upper side of electric pole, which were depicted in the photographs. He could not tell on seeing the Digitally signed FIR No. 46/2009 State Vs. Zahid ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: Page 6 of 13 2026.03.12 ZAIDI 16:05:32 +0530 photographs that from which source the naked wires were connected and from where the electricity supply was coming. He admitted that he did not had personal knowledge that the said Rahul was electrocuted.
15. PW3 Chhotey Lal, in his examination deposed that on 27.02.2009 at night, marriage ceremony of his daughter was going on in the street of his house and he had given the contract of tent and light to Zahid. He further deposed that behind the tent, one generator was kept from where the electricity was supplied to the said marriage ceremony and near the said Generator, naked live wires of electricity were kept. He deposed that he told the accused to remove the naked live wires. He further deposed that due to the negligence of the accused, Rahul was electrocuted by the said wires. During cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW3 did not know if wire was directly connected from electric pole or not. He denied all the suggestions, put by Ld. defence Counsel.
16. PW4 Sh. Ishwar Chand, in his examination in chief deposed that on 27.2.2009, he was hired by Chhote Lal to prepare food on the occasion of marriage of daughter of Chhote Lal and Rahul was working at Golgappa stall. He deposed that at about 8.30 р.m., Rahul went out of tent and in the meantime, he came to know that Rahul has been electrocuted with live wire connected with generator. He deposed that he immediately rushed to the spot and found that Rahul was unconscious and was taken to hospital by one Chauhan Singh. He further deposed that at about 10.00 p.m., he came to know that Rahul has scummed due to electrocution and died. He deposed that the light was provided by accused Zahid through generator and the accused was negligent as the wire was naked and he had not provided any safety to the wire. He deposed that the wire which was connected to generator was naked and deceased Rahul died due to touching with naked wire. He deposed that IO recorded his statement.
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA ZAIDI
Date:
ZAIDI 2026.03.12
16:05:37
+0530
FIR No. 46/2009 State Vs. Zahid Page 7 of 13
17. During cross-examination by Ld. defence Counsel, PW4 did not aware about terms and conditions of the agreement between Chhote Lal and Zahid regarding supply of generator and electricity. He did not had knowledge that Chhote Lal was having his personal electrician to look after the electricity supply and Zahid had provided the generator on rent to him. He did not know if the electricity was directly supplied from the pole. He admitted that he had no knowledge whether the naked wires were connected with the generator or with the electricity pole. He testified that Rahul was not in drunken condition when he was working with him. He denied all the suggestions, put by Ld. defence Counsel.
18. PW5 ASI Paltu Singh, in his examination in chief deposed that in the intervening night of 27-28.02.2009, on receiving DD No. 62-B, he alongwith IO went to GTB hospital where IO collected MLC of Rahul, who was declared brought dead. He deposed that IO recorded the statement of eye witness namely Chauhan Singh and returned back at spot alongwith eye witness Chauhan singh. He further deposed that IO made endorsement on the complaint, prepared rukka and got the FIR registered through him. He deposed that he got the photographs of the spot clicked through photographer. He further deposed that IO seized the generator vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B, prepared site plan at the instance of eye witness Chauhan Singh, arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PWI/C and conducted the personal search of accused vide personal search memo Ex. PWI/D. He further deposed that the case property was brought to PS and deposited in malkhana and IO recorded his statement.
19. During cross-examination by Ld. defence Counsel, PW5 testified that he reached at GTB hospital at about 9.30 p.m. He further testified that IO recorded the statement of Chauhan Singh at about 10.00 p.m. He testified that he left for PS at about 11.30 p.m. with rukka and returned back at 12.15 a.m. He did not remember the time of taking of photographs. He did not know when the site plan was prepared. He testified that site plan was not prepared in his presence. He testified that accused was arrested at about 1.30 a.m. He denied all the suggestions, put by Ld. defence Counsel.
Digitally signedFIR No. 46/2009 State Vs. Zahid ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: Page 8 of 13 2026.03.12 ZAIDI 16:05:44 +0530
20. PW6 Sh. Manohar Lal Dhyani, in his examination in chief deposed that on 13.05.2009, he conducted the mechanical inspection of diesel generator and prepared his report Ex. PW6/A. During cross-examination by Ld. defence Counsel, PW6 testified that he was having knowledge regarding generator. He admitted that the generator which he had examined was of 7 KVA load and single phase generator. He admitted that if a person touches the electricity output wire of the said generator then he can get only shock and he will not stuck with the wire and the same could not be fatal.
21. PW7 Sh. Sonu Singh, in his examination in chief deposed that on 28.02.2009, he received information regarding death of Rahul who was his cousin brother by electrocution of generator and his dead body was lying at GTB hospital mortuary and accordingly, he informed father of Rahul regarding the same. He further deposed that on the next morning, father of Rahul came and he took him to the mortuary of GTB hospital where they identified the dead body of Rahul vide identification memo Ex. PW7/A. He deposed that postmortem of dead body of Rahul was conducted and IO recorded his statement. The witness was not cross-examined despite opportunity.
22. PW8 Retired S1 Rajender Singh, in his examination in chief deposed that on 27.02.2009, on receiving DD No. 62-B regarding death of a person by electrocution and his body was lying at GTB hospital, he alongwith Ct. Paltu Ram went to GTB hospital and obtained the MLC No. 855/09 of deceased Rahul, and as per the MLC, the deceased was brought dead in the hospital. He further deposed that he met eye witness of the incident Chauhan Singh in the hospital and enquired about the incident and recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A, bearing my signatures at point B and prepared the rukka Ex.PW8/A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Paltu Ram. He conducted the investigation in the present case and filed the chargesheet.
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA ZAIDI
Date:
FIR No. 46/2009 State Vs. Zahid ZAIDI 2026.03.12
16:05:50
Page 9 of 13
+0530
23. During cross-examination by Ld. defence Counsel, PW8 did not know the capacity of the generator in question. He testified that he had seen the naked wire which were going from generator to the function. He could not say whether death of deceased Rahul was not caused by the electricity of the said generator as he was not technical expert. He denied all the suggestions, put by Ld. Defence Counsel.
24. The prosecution examined eight witnesses in support of its case. PW1 Chauhan Singh deposed that he saw one person being electrocuted and that the wire connected to the generator installed by the accused was live and naked. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that the deceased was lying about ten meters away from the generator. He further admitted that he did not know whether a single-phase generator could cause fatal electrocution and he also admitted that he had no personal knowledge regarding the contractual terms between the accused and Chhotey Lal. It is not clear from the testimony that the electricity causing death emanated from the generator installed by the accused.
25. PW2 Mukesh Kumar, who had taken photographs of the spot admitted in his cross-examination that he could not tell from which source the naked wires were connected and from where the electricity supply was coming. He also admitted that he did not have personal knowledge that Rahul was electrocuted by the generator. This admission creates a serious dent with respect to the source of electricity connected with the fatal incident.
26. PW3 Chhotey Lal the person who had allegedly engaged the accused for tent and lighting arrangements, deposed that there were naked wires near the generator. However, he admitted that he did not know whether the wire was directly connected from the electric pole or not.
27. Similarly, PW4 Ishwar Chand admitted that he had no knowledge Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA ZAIDI FIR No. 46/2009 State Vs. Zahid Date:
Page 10 of 13ZAIDI 2026.03.12 16:05:55 +0530 whether the naked wires were connected with the generator or with the electric pole. He further stated that he was unaware whether Chhotey Lal had his own electrician for managing the electricity supply. These admissions clearly show that none of the material witnesses could conclusively establish that the current originated exclusively from the generator installed by the accused.
28. PW5 ASI Paltu Singh merely deposed about reaching GTB Hospital on receipt of DD entry, recording of statement of PW1, preparation of rukka, registration of FIR, seizure of generator and arrest of the accused. However, in cross-examination he admitted that the site plan was not prepared in his presence, he did not remember the time when photographs were taken, and he had no knowledge regarding the technical aspects of the generator or the source of electricity. His evidence is, thus, formal in nature.
29. The most clinching evidence in is that of PW6, the mechanical inspector who examined the generator. He categorically stated that the generator in question was a 7 KVA single phase generator and admitted in cross-examination that if a person touches the output wire of such a generator, he may receive a shock but would not get stuck to it and such shock would not be fatal. This admission clearly hits at the root of the prosecution case.
30. No electrical inspector was examined. No scientific report was placed on record to establish that the generator was capable of causing fatal electrocution. Infact as per PW6 the possibility of fatal electrocution from the said generator is improbable.
31. The IO himself admitted that he was not a technical expert and could not say whether the death of Rahul was caused by electricity from the said generator. The alleged naked wires were not sent to the FSL for forensic examination. The alleged Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: 2026.03.12 FIR No. 46/2009 State Vs. Zahid ZAIDI 16:06:02 +0530 Page 11 of 13 wires were neither seized nor examined for any defects. No inspection of the nearby electric pole was conducted.
32. The mechanical inspection of the generator was conducted on 13/5/2009 after more than two months after the incident, which further corrodes the case of the prosecution by diminishing the credibility of the mechanical inspection report. From the perusal of evidence, it emerges two possible sources of electricity are evident one the generator and the electric pole and the prosecution fails to rule out one of the possible causes, the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the accused.
33. In the present case, even for the sake of assumption if it is assumed that naked wires were present at the spot, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was responsible for the placement and maintenance of the same. The possibility of intervention by another person was not ruled out. Furthermore, no person actually witnessed the deceased touching the wire connected to the generator.
34. PW IO/SI KP Singh was dropped from the list of the witnesses as he was prevented by his old age and illness to depose before the court. In the absence testimony, several aspects remain unexplained. The doctrine of proximate cause also remains unfulfilled.
35. It is an adage that law works on the wheels of evidence. Every criminal trial is a journey of discovering and unfolding the truth. But in the present case no sufficient evidence is there on record to warrant the conviction of the accused person. In the case of Prem Singh Yadav Vs. CBI 178 (2011) DLT 529 it was held that where it is possible to have both views one in favor of prosecution and one in favor of accused, the later one should prevail. The prosecution could not prove by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Digitally signed ISRA by ISRA ZAIDI Date: FIR No. 46/2009 State Vs. Zahid 2026.03.12 Page 12 of 13 ZAIDI 16:06:09 +0530 burden never shifts. An accused enjoys the presumption of innocence. There is no duty on an accused person to purge himself of guilt. Where there is a lingering doubt, the accused person is given the benefit of the doubt.
36. Therefore, keeping in view the overall conspectus of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to discharge the burden imposed on it by law of satisfying this Court beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. Therefore, this Court gives benefit of doubt to the accused. Accordingly, accused Zahid is acquitted for offence punishable u/s 304-A IPC.
Announced in the open Court today i.e. 12.03.2026. Digitally signed by ISRA ISRA ZAIDI Date:
ZAIDI 2026.03.12 16:06:16 +0530 (ISRA ZAIDI) Judicial Magistrate First Class-04 North-East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi This Judgment contains 13 pages and each page bears my signature.FIR No. 46/2009 State Vs. Zahid Page 13 of 13