Delhi District Court
State vs Surendar Kumar Gupta on 27 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRAGATI
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, DELHI.
STATE VS. SURENDER KUMAR GUPTA
FIR No.: 161/2020
PS: ANAND VIHAR
JUDGMENT
A Case Identification 4083/20 Number B Name of the Heera Lal, S/o Sunder Lal Complainant C Name of the accused Surender Kumar Gupta, S/o Madan persons Nayyer D Date of commission of 09.05.2020 the offences E Date of Institution of the 05.11.2020 case F Offences charged 289/337 IPC G Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty H Date of Pronouncement 27.09.2025 of judgment J Final Order Acquittal. K State represented by APP for the State.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Present accused Surender Kumar Gupta is produced before the court to stand trial for the offence punishable u/s 289/337 IPC.
STATE VS. SURENDER KUMAR GUPTA FIR No.: 161/2020 PS: ANAND VIHAR Page 1 of 7Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.27 15:27:22 +0530
2. In brief, it is the case of the prosecution that on 30.06.2020, on receipt of DD No. 7A, ASI Om Prakash alongwith Ct. Rahul reached at Dr. Hedgewar Hospital where ASI Om Prakash collected the MLC of injured Heera Lal wherein doctor had opined the alleged history of dog bite, 3 days ago and had further opined the patient fit for giving statement. However, complainant/injured Heera Lal requested for giving his statement after his treatment. That thereafter, complainant Heera Lal visited the police station and handed over a written complaint to ASI Om Prakash wherein he stated that he works as a security guard in Anand Vihar and on 09.05.2020, he was performing his duties at C-173, Anand Vihar. Then at about 10 am, owner of the aforesaid building namely Sh. S.K. Gupta directed him to take his dog for a walk, however, on his denial to the same, the dog pounced upon him and attacked his right leg and resultantly, the complainant sustained severe injuries. That accused S.K. Gupta, took him to Pushpanjali hospital, Anand Vihar, Delhi, for his treatment. That thereafter on 12.05.2020 when he requested the accused for his treatment, then the accused denied and he himself went to Dr. Hedgewar hospital for treatment. Prayer was made that legal action be taken against accused. Accordingly an FIR was registered in the case in hand. Investigation was set into motion. Accused was arrested and was produced before the court to face trial.
3. Upon completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court, copy whereof, was provided to accused as per the provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
4. Arguments on charge were heard and charge u/s 289/337 IPC was framed against the accused to which the pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Thereafter, prosecution was asked to lead its evidence wherein it examined a total number of 04 witnesses. Role of each of them is discussed hereinbelow:-
STATE VS. SURENDER KUMAR GUPTA FIR No.: 161/2020 PS: ANAND VIHAR Page 2 of 7Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.27 15:27:34 +0530 PW-1 : Dr. Manoj Bansal deposed that on 09.05.2020, he was working as Senior Consultant, Plastic Surgery, Pushpanjali Medical Center, KKD, Delhi, and he had examined patient Heera Lal who was having multiple large wounds with avulsion of skin flap on the lower one third of left leg which was almost circumferential. That he gave first aid to the patient and left the hospital. PW-1 further proved the MLC dated 09.05.2020 (Ex. PW1/A) prepared by him.
PW2 : Dr. Shani Kumar deposed that on 12.05.2020, he was working as CMO, Casualty, Dr. Hedgewar hospital, Delhi, and on that day patient Heera Lal was brought to the hospital by Ct. Rahul in conscious state. That he came with the alleged history of dog bite three days ago and had already taken treatment on 09.05.2020 from Pushpanjali Hospital, Delhi. That on examination, he found bandage over left leg of Heera Lal and referred him to surgery department for further management and opinion. PW-2 further proved the MLC of injured (Ex.
PW2/A).
PW3 : Ct. Rahul deposed that on 12.05.2020, he was posted at PS Anand Vihar as constable and on receipt of DD No. 7A, he alongwith IO/ASI Om Prakash reached at Hedgewar Hospital where IO had received the MLC of injured HeeraLal. That injured had requested the IO for giving his statement afterwards after coming to PS. That thereafter, the complainant had visited the PS and had handed over a complaint to the IO. That IO had prepared a tehrir and had handed over the same to D.O. for registration of the case. That an FIR was lodged and his statement was recorded by the IO.
PW4: ASI Om Prakash deposed that on 12.05.2020, he was posted at PS Anand Vihar as ASI and on receipt of DD No. 7A, he alongwith Ct. Rahul reached at Hedgewar Hospital and received the MLC of injured Heera Lal who STATE VS. SURENDER KUMAR GUPTA FIR No.: 161/2020 PS: ANAND VIHAR Page 3 of 7 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.27 15:27:46 +0530 was under treatment. That Heera Lal requested him to give his statement at PS later on. That after medical treatment the injured had come to the PS and handed over a written complaint to him. That he prepared rukka Ex. PW4/A and handed over the same to D.O. for registration of case. That thereafter he alongwith the complainant reached at the spot and he prepared site plan Ex. PW4/B at the instance of complainant. He further deposed that on 18.05.2020, he served a notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. to accused Surender Kumar Gupta after which accused came to PS and joined the investigation. That he deposited the MLC of injured for final opinion which was opined to be simple in nature. That he received photographs of the dog from the accused as well as photographs of the injuries suffered by the complainant. That thereafter, he recorded the statement of witnesses, prepared chargesheet and filed it before the court. He identified the accused present before the court and he also identified the said dog from the photographs Ex. P1 to Ex. P4.
6. Vide separately recorded statement dated 02.09.2025 under Section 294 Cr.P.C., accused admitted the genuineness of FIR no. 161/2020, PS Anand Vihar and MLC dated 12.05.2020 of HeeraLal Ex. PW2/A. Accordingly, PW HC Azad and PW Dr. Vikas Gupta were dropped from the list of witnesses.
7. Further, the complainant had expired on 03.12.2022, before he could be examined as a prosecution witness.
8. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein the accused denied the allegations so leveled against him and stated that he is innocent and is being falsely implicated in the present case.
STATE VS. SURENDER KUMAR GUPTA FIR No.: 161/2020 PS: ANAND VIHAR Page 4 of 7Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.27 15:27:58 +0530
9. Accused further did not chose to lead any evidence in defence and therefore, opportunity to lead defence evidence was closed.
10. Final arguments advanced by Ld. APP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel heard. Case file perused carefully.
11. Ld. APP for the State has contended that all the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution version, therefore, the accused is liable to be held guilty.
12. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that the death of the complainant had taken place after more than two years of the incident and the same cannot be said to have been occurred due to the said dog bite. That there is no rash or negligent act done on behalf of the accused. It is further state that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case, therefore, he may be acquitted.
13. It is pertinent to reiterate here one of the most well known and cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that in criminal law the burden lies upon prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused.
14. In the case in hand, the case of the prosecution is that the dog of the accused had bitten the complainant due to which the complainant suffered injuries. However, evidently before complainant could be examined as a prosecution witness, he expired. Perusal of record reveals that during the STATE VS. SURENDER KUMAR GUPTA FIR No.: 161/2020 PS: ANAND VIHAR Page 5 of 7 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.27 15:28:17 +0530 pendency of trial wife of the deceased complainant had appeared before the court and alleged that the death of complainant took place due to the said dog bite. In view of the said allegations levelled by the wife of deceased complainant, vide order dated 16.02.2024, Ld. predecessor judge had directed the SHO concerned to collect the medical documents of deceased/complainant and get the same verified and file the same on record, for ascertaining the cause of death of the complainant. In pursuance of the same death certificate of the complainant was placed on record, however no record was produced to show that the cause of his death was the alleged god bite. Accordingly, PW1 Dr. Manoj Bansal and PW2 Dr. Shani Kumar who had prepared the MLC of the complainant after medically examining him on 09.05.2020 (date of incident) and 12.05.2020, respectively, were examined by the prosecution. However in their cross-examination both the said witnesses could not state as to whether the complainant had died due to the said dog bite or not. Further, it is pertinent to note here that the incident had occurred on 09.05.2020 whereas, the death of the complainant occurred on 03.12.2022 which is more than two years after the date of the incident. As per the submissions made by the wife of the complainant on 09.05.2024 before the court, the complainant had expired while on his way to the hospital and no medical document was prepared at the time of his death.
15. It is further pertinent to note here that vide order dated 22.11.2024, the IO of the case in hand was again directed to verify the medical documents of the deceased/ complainant and accordingly a report in this regard was filed on 13.01.2025 by the IO. Perusal of the said report reveals that the medical documents of complainant/deceased which were got verified by the IO are only up to the date of 10.09.2020 and there is no further medical documents of the deceased/complainant to show that he was undergoing treatment in respect of the said dog bite till the time of his death in the year 2022. Thus, there is nothing on STATE VS. SURENDER KUMAR GUPTA FIR No.: 161/2020 PS: ANAND VIHAR Page 6 of 7 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.27 15:28:28 +0530 record to suggest that the death of the complainant which had taken place after more than two years of the occurrence of the incident had occurred due to the said dog bite. In the absence of any medical record the accused can not be held liable for causing of death of the complainant. Further, since the complainant could not be examined by the prosecution therefore it can also not be said that there was rash and negligent act on the part of the accused to take sufficient care in respect of his dog because of which injuries were suffered by the deceased complainant.
16. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the view that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Surender Kumar Gupta hereby is acquitted of the charge under Section 289/337 IPC framed against him.
Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.27 15:28:44 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (Pragati) on dated 27th September, 2025 ACJM(Shahdara)/KKD/Delhi/27.09.2025 Present judgment consists of 07 and each page bears my signatures.Digitally signed by PRAGATI Date:
PRAGATI 2025.09.27 15:28:51 +0530 (Pragati) ACJM(Shahdara)/KKD/Delhi/27.09.2025 STATE VS. SURENDER KUMAR GUPTA FIR No.: 161/2020 PS: ANAND VIHAR Page 7 of 7