Delhi District Court
State vs Amna Begum on 10 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. BHANU PRATAP SINGH, JMFC-02, SOUTH
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLST020136642017
CR Cases 2699/2017
STATE Vs. AMNA BEGUM
FIR No. 725/2016
PS : Malviya Nagar
JUDGMENT
1) CR No. of the case : 2699/2017
2) The date of commission of offence: 21.10.2016
3) The name of the complainant : Suraj
4) The name & parentage of accused: Amna Begum
W/o Farmud Ahmad
R/o H. No. E-11/2, Hauz
Rani, New Delhi.
5) Offence involved : 304A of IPC
6) The plea of accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
7) Final order : Acquittal
8) The date of order : 10.11.2025
Date of Institution : 11.07.2017
Judgment pronounced on : 10.11.2025
FIR No. 725/2016 State Vs. Amna Begum 1 of 7
Digitally signed
BHANU by BHANU
PRATAP SINGH
PRATAP Date:
SINGH 2025.11.10
17:35:28 +0530
BRIEF FACTS
01. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.10.2016 at about 08:15 PM at H. No. A 11/1 near Jahapanah Masjid Hauz Rani, New Delhi accused being the owner of the aforesaid premises, did not take such order as was sufficient to guard against probable danger in relation to partially constructed toilet on the terrace of said premises as the walls of the toilet did not have plastering of cement and due to fall of bricks from said partially constructed toilet, death of Sh. Indra Bhushan Chaudhary was caused not amounting to culpable homicide and thereby accused committed offence punishable u/s 304A IPC.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
02. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC was filed by the IO. The cognizance of the offence was taken by this Court and summons were issued to the accused. Thereafter when the accused appeared before the Court, copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the accused and charge for commission of offence under Section 304A of IPC was framed upon the accused on 03.04.2018 to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, prosecution witnesses were examined, cross-examined and discharged. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC was recorded on 12.11.2024 to which accused stated that she wants to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, DW-1 Aas Mohammad, DW-2 Nazakat Ali, DW-3 Naved Akhtar, DW-4 Suhaleheen and DW-5 Amna Begum were examined and discharged in DE. Thereafter, DE was closed on 22.07.2025. Thereafter, the matter was listed for final arguments.
FIR No. 725/2016 State Vs. Amna Begum 2 of 7 Digitally signed BHANU by BHANU PRATAP SINGH PRATAP Date:
SINGH 2025.11.10 17:35:33 +0530 Thereafter, final arguments were heard on behalf of the parties.
REASONS FOR DECISION
03. In order to prove the case of prosecution, prosecution examined PW-1 Abhishek Kumar, PW-2 Kanhiya Kumar, PW-3 Md.
Mosim, PW-4 Rahees Ahmed, PW-5 HC Jaiveer Singh, PW-6 HC Buddhi Prakash PW-7 Dr. Mohan Singh Meena, PW-8 Bhunesh Kumar Sharma, PW-9 HC Ajay Singh, PW-10 SI Suraj and PW-11 Parshuram Singh.
04. PW1 Abhishek Kumar stated in his testimony that he was purchasing some pan masala from the pan shop in the meantime deceased Inder Bhushan and his friend went 10-15 steps away from the pan shop suddenly some bricks some bricks fell from one building/house no. A-11/1 due to this deceased Inder Bhushan sustained injury on his head.
05. Thereafter PW1 was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State as the witness was resiling from his previous statement. PW1 stated in his cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State that he along with Kanhaiya Kumar went to the third floor of H. No. A-11/1 from where the bricks fell down on Inder Bhushan and one under construction toilet was there. PW1 further stated that the said under construction toilet was made from 04 inches bricks and no plaster has been done on the aforesaid wall. PW1 stated in his cross-examination by counsel for accused that he had not met the accused at the spot.
FIR No. 725/2016 State Vs. Amna Begum 3 of 7 Digitally signed BHANU by BHANU PRATAP SINGH PRATAP Date:
SINGH 2025.11.10 17:35:38 +0530
06. Perusal of testimony of PW1 shows that PW1 had resiled from his previous statement. Further PW1 does not mention that he saw or found the accused at the third floor of the building in question. Further, PW1 did not state that how he had measured the size of the bricks as four inches. Therefore, on perusal of the testimony of PW1 this Court is of the view that the testimony of PW1 is not reliable and is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution.
07. PW2 Kanhaiya Kumar also deposed on similar lines as PW1 and thereafter he was cross-examined by Ld. APP for State as he was resiling from his previous statement. PW2 in his cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State stated that the said under construction toilet was made from 04 inches bricks and no plaster has been done on the aforesaid wall.
08. Perusal of testimony of PW2 shows that PW2 had resiled from his previous statement. Further PW2 does not mention that he saw or found the accused at the third floor of the building in question. Further, PW2 did not state that how he had measured the size of the bricks as four inches. Therefore, on perusal of the testimony of PW2 this Court is of the view that the testimony of PW2 is not reliable and is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution.
09. PW3 Md. Mosim stated in his cross-examination that shop keeper of the pan shop was also available at the time of incident. PW3 further stated that he cannot tell whether the construction work was going FIR No. 725/2016 State Vs. Amna Begum 4 of 7 Digitally signed BHANU by BHANU PRATAP SINGH PRATAP Date:
SINGH 2025.11.10 17:35:43 +0530 on in the alleged house or not.
10. Perusal of the record shows that the owner of the pan shop was not made a witness in the present case. Further perusal of testimony of PW3 shows that he is not aware whether there was any construction work going on at the third floor of the said building. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the testimony of PW3 is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution.
11. PW4 Rahees Ahmed stated in his examination in chief that he does not know from where the brick had fallen as he was inside his shop and he came to know that a brick had fallen on the deceased only when he came outside the shop. PW4 further stated that he did not give any statement to the police to the effect that incomplete construction work of accused was going on at the place of the incident.
12. Therefore, on perusal of the testimony of PW4, this Court is of the view that PW4 is not an eye witness of the present case and his testimony is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution.
13. PW6 HC Buddhi Prakash stated in his examination in chief that IO also took some bricks and stones from the roof and seized the same vide seizure memo. However, perusal of testimony of PW10 SI Suraj shows that PW10 stated in his cross-examination that he had not taken the bricks or part of the wall of the washroom situated in H. No. A-11/1 and had not sent the same to FSL for examination of mortar FIR No. 725/2016 State Vs. Amna Begum 5 of 7 Digitally signed BHANU by BHANU PRATAP SINGH PRATAP Date:
SINGH 2025.11.10 17:35:47 +0530 material adhered to the bricks of the wall of the washroom. This Court is of the view that this is a material contradiction in the testimony of PW6 HC Buddhi Prakash and PW10 SI Suraj. Further PW10 did not give any explanation for not seizing the bricks from the terrace of the H. No. A-11/1. Further no photographs of any construction material from the terrace were placed on record by the IO. Further IO did not seize any construction material from the terrace of H. No. A-11/1. Further IO did not record statement of any worker or labourer to show any ongoing construction of washroom at the terrace of H. No. A-11/1.
14. Therefore, on perusal of testimony of PW6 and PW10 this Court is of the view that there is no evidence on record to show any ongoing construction of washroom at H. No. A-11/1. Further, there is no evidence on record to show that the brick that had fallen on the deceased was of same description as that on the terrace of H. No. A-11/1 as no such brick was seized from the terrace and no such brick from the terrace was sent to FSL for expert opinion to compare it with the brick that had hit the deceased. Further, the absence of cement plaster on the bricks of the washroom on the terrace of H. No. A-11/1 cannot be said to be a negligent act or omission when there is no evidence of any ongoing construction at the terrace of H. No. A-11/1 and when there is no evidence to show that the brick that hit the deceased had fallen from the terrace of the H. No. A-11/1.
FIR No. 725/2016 State Vs. Amna Begum 6 of 7 Digitally signed BHANU by BHANU PRATAP SINGH PRATAP Date:
SINGH 2025.11.10 17:35:52 +0530
15. Therefore a reasonable doubt is created on the case of the prosecution as the prosecution has failed to prove that the brick that had fallen on the deceased was of the same description as the brick on the terrace of H. No. A-11/1. Therefore, this Court is of the view that benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused as there is no evidence of any ongoing construction at the terrace of H. No. A-11/1 and there is no evidence on record to show any criminal negligence on part of the accused.
Conclusion
16. In view of the above reasons, this Court has arrived to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the present case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused is not guilty in the present case. Therefore, accused Amna Begum stands acquitted for the offence under Section 304A of IPC.
Digitally signed by BHANU BHANU PRATAP
SINGH
Announced in open court PRATAP Date:
on 10.11.2025. SINGH 2025.11.10
17:35:56
+0530
(BHANU PRATAP SINGH)
JMFC-02(South)/Saket Courts
New Delhi/10.11.2025
FIR No. 725/2016 State Vs. Amna Begum 7 of 7