Delhi District Court
State vs Mehrajuddin on 15 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. KUMAR RAJAT,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-07, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF:
CNR No. DLSH01-001847-2021
SC No. 81/2021
FIR No. 211/2013
PS Jafrabad
U/S 288/308/304 IPC
STATE
Vs.
MEHRAJUDDIN,
S/o Late Sh. Rehmatullah,
R/o H.No. G-45, East Kailash,
New Delhi.
........ Accused
Date of Institution of case 20.02.2021
Date of case reserved for Judgment 04.04.2026
Judgment Pronounced on 15.04.2026
Decision Acquitted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
1. As per the case of prosecution, on 06.07.2013, DD no.
4B was registered that at about 1.54 AM, one building had
collapsed near Tent Wala School, Jafrabad, Delhi and IO reached
the spot and prepared a note that on receipt of DD No. 30A dated
05.07.2013 regarding apprehension of collapse of building no.
12A/72D, Jamalu Ka Bagh, Gali No. 1, Maujpur of 180 Sq. yards
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 1 of 44
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.04.15
16:41:00 +0530
and SHO and ACP reached there. Officers of MCD i.e. A.K.
Singh (AE Works), OP Ojha (Ex.En. Building), Mohd. Illyasi
(Ex.En.), Inspector Satbir with DC Staff, Sh. Tarun Kumar
Tahsildar (Shahdara and Seelampur with staff) also reached the
spot. Owner of the building Mehrajuddin and builder Furkan also
reached there. Mehrajuddin desired to demolish the building, but
he was forbidden by SHO, Jafrabad and ACP, Seelampur as it
was work of MCD and MCD officials allowed the owner to
demolish the building and SHO Jafrabad increased the police
staff to cordon off the building, but the said building collapsed at
1.54 AM while being pull down and 17 labourers got injured and
it was found that it was already built up old building on which
only basement and ground floor were already constructed and no
portion of building was occupied by any shop-keeper or resident
and construction from ground floor upwards, was started by
accused Mehrajuddin in 2013 regarding which intimation was
given by local police to MCD and SDM, Shahdara on
28.05.2013, which was duly received by Ex.En. (Building),
Shahdara and SDM, Shahdara on 29.05.2013 and information of
unauthorized construction was given by local police to MCD
vide DD No. 20B dated 26.05.2013, which was duly booked by
MCD on 26.05.2013, but no communication was received by
local police from MCD or SDM, Shahdara. Demolition and
pulling down of building requires engineering skills, which was
not known to local police, so it was allowed by MCD officials
and DC staff present there and building was being pulled down in
their presence.
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 2 of 44
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.04.15
16:41:04 +0530
2. On the said note/complaint, the FIR was registered
vide FIR No. 211/2013, dt. 06.07.2013 in PS Jafrabad u/s
288/308 IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against
accused Mehrajuddin u/s 288/308/304 IPC and after the filing of
charge-sheet, cognizance of offences was taken against the
accused.
CHARGE
3. Charge for the offences punishable u/s 288/308/304
IPC was framed against accused Mehrajuddin by Ld. Predecessor
on 02.02.2022. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
ADMISSION / DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS
4. Admission/denial of documents u/s 294 Cr.P.C./330
BNSS was conducted on 22.07.2025. Accused Mehrajuddin, vide
his separate statement recorded on the abovesaid date, had not
disputed the following documents:
(i) MLC No. 167135 dt. 06.07.2013 of injured Yaseen
prepared by Dr. Girish Chander Prabhat of Shushutra Trauma
Centre, Delhi, Ex.PA1.
(ii) MLC Nos. D-8, D-9 and D-14, all dt. 06.07.2013
of injured persons namely Abdul Hasan, Nawab Ali and Aslam
prepared by Dr. Ashish Tomar of GTB Hospital, Ex.PA2, Ex.PA3
& Ex.PA4.
(iii) MLC No. D-2, D-3, D-5 and D-11, all dt.
06.07.2013 of injured persons namely Mohd. Akhtar, Shamshul,
Mohd. Shahid and Mohd. Samad prepared by Dr. Aditya
Chauhan of GTB Hospital, Ex.PA5, Ex.PA6, Ex.PA7 & Ex.PA8.
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 3 of 44
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.04.15
16:41:09 +0530
(iv) MLC Nos. D-4, D-1, D-7, D-12, D-10, D-13, all
dt. 06.07.2013 of injured persons namely Sonawar, Illyas,
Riyasat, Ehsaan, Mohd. Iqbal and Ikram prepared by Dr. Alok
Chaudhary and nature of injuries given by Dr. Ravi, Dr.
Baleshwar, Dr. Meenakshi, Dr. Nitesh, Dr. Rakesh of GTB
Hospital, Ex.PA9, Ex.PA10, Ex.PA11, Ex.PA12, Ex.PA13 &
Ex.PA14.
(v) MLC of injured Urman dt. 06.07.2013 prepared by
Dr. Meenakshi and nature of injuries was given by Dr. Nitesh,
Ex.PA15.
(vi) PM Report No. 903/2013 dt. 06.07.2013 of
deceased Furkan prepared by Dr. Shalini Rajdan of GTB
Hospital, Ex.PA16.
In view of above-said admission, the requirement of
evidence of following witnesses was dispensed with :
Sl. no. Name of the witnesses
1. Dr. Girish Chander Prabhat (at Sl. No. 26 in the list of
witnesses)
2. Dr. Ashish Tomar of GTB Hospital (at Sl. No. 22 in the
list of witnesses)
3. Dr. Aditya Chauhan of GTB Hospital (at Sl. No. 20 in
the list of witnesses)
4. Dr. Alok Chaudhary (at Sl. No. 19 in the list of
witnesses)
5. Dr. Ravi of GTB Hospital(at Sl. No. 23 in the list of
witnesses)
6. Dr. Baleshwar of GTB Hospital (at Sl. No. 25 in the list
of witnesses)
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 4 of 44
KUMAR Digitally signed
by KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT 16:41:15 +0530
Date: 2026.04.15
7. Dr. Meenakshi of GTB Hospital (at Sl. No. 18 in the list
of witnesses)
8. Dr. Nitesh of GTB Hospital (at Sl. No. 21 in the list of
witnesses)
9. Dr. Rakesh of GTB Hospital (at Sl. No. 24 in the list of
witnesses)
10. Dr. Shalini Rajdan of GTB Hospital (at Sl. No. 27 in the
list of witnesses)
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. Prosecution examined thirty (30) witnesses in its
favour to prove the case.
6. PW1 SI Lalit Mohan deposed that on 05.07.2013, he
was posted at PS Jafrabad as SI and he was on emergency duty
from 8 AM to 8 PM and at about 6.10 PM, when he was on
another call, he had received an information from DO about DD
No. 30A, Ex.PW1/A that one five story building i.e. 12/1/72D,
Main Road, Vijay Mohalla, Park Maujpur, Delhi, was about to
collapse. He along with one constable reached at the spot where
one PCR van was already present. SHO and ACP were also
present there and some afratafri was going on. He saw that
plaster of that house was waiving (lehra raha tha) and was about
to fall. There were some cracks in the house, which was about to
collapse. Some officials of MCD including Tehsildar Mr. Tarun,
Executive Engineers namely Mr. A K Singh and Mr. O.P. Ojha
and SDM Mr. Anil Kumar also reached there. They stopped the
traffic and asked the officials of MCD to take action as per law.
7. PW1 further deposed that MCD officials replied that
they had already given notice to accused Mehrajuddin to
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 5 of 44
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.04.15
16:41:22 +0530
demolish the above said under constructed building on its own,
otherwise MCD would take action. Outer force was also installed
for help. As his duty hours were complete at about 8 PM, so
SHO/ACP relieved him from the spot. PW1 came back to his
home. On 06.07.2013 at about 2 AM in the night, PW1 had
received an information from DO and DD no. 48B dated
06.07.2013, Ex.PW1/B was marked to him regarding collapse of
abovesaid building. PW1 was also told that abovesaid DD had
been sent to spot through Jogender. Thereafter, PW1 reached at
the spot i.e. 12-A/107D, Jamalu Ka Bagh, Gali No. 1, Maujpur,
Main Road No. 66, Delhi-53, where he saw many ambulances,
PCR Vans, Police officials of MCD and forces were also present.
Accused Mehrajuddin was also present on the spot and
discussing with officials of MCD. 17 injured persons were
shifted to hospital for medical treatment.
8. PW1 further deposed that he had discussed the matter
with SHO and other senior officers and Tehrir, Ex.PW1/C was
prepared on DD No. 48-B. Rukka was handed over to Ct.
Jogender for registration of FIR, who went to PS and got the FIR
registered and handed over the same to IO/SHO Inspector Sudesh
Ranga for further necessary action. On the direction of ACP/IO,
PW1 got conducted the postmortem of dead body of deceased
Furkan after he moved application for PM, Ex.PW1/D. PW1 also
filled form 25.35, Ex.PW1/E. After the postmortem, dead body
of deceased was identified by his brother Farhan and brother-in-
law Mohd. Shakir vide memos, Ex.PW1/F and Ex.PW1/G. After
the postmortem, dead body was handed over to them, vide
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 6 of 44
KUMAR Digitally signed
by KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT 16:41:27 +0530
Date: 2026.04.15
memo, Ex.PW1/H. Thereafter, PW1 came back to spot. PW1
correctly identified accused Mehrajuddin in the Court.
9. PW2 Parveen Kumar deposed that in the year 2013,
he was working as Junior Engineer, Building 1 & 2, Shahdara
North Zone, EDMC, Delhi. On 03.07.2013, he was suspended
from the job. He did not remember the exact date or month, but
perhaps in the month of June, 2013, on the instruction of
Assistant Engineer, Sh. Arun Kumar Meena, PW2 visited
property no. 12A/107B, Jamalu Ka Bagh, Main Road, Maujpur,
which was in the jurisdiction of Building 2, Shahdara, North
Zone. PW2 did not know the owner of said building and he never
met him or his relatives. There was no file of said property in
their office. Whenever they received any information about
unauthorized constructions, they would take action u/s 343/344
DMC Act. Action u/s 343/344 DMC Act is usually taken against
new construction. They would visit the property and also send
notice to its owner. During his visit, he found that minor repair
like plaster etc. was going on at the abovesaid address. PW2
informed about the status of the same to Assistant Engineer and
there was no new construction. No written report was prepared
by him in this case as no written instruction was given to him by
Assistant Engineer. During his visit, he found that property was
up to 3rd Floor starting from basement. On 03.07.2013, charge of
Junior Engineer, Building 2 was taken over by N S Meena. Police
interrogated him and he gave written reply, Ex.PW2/A in his
handwriting.
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 7 of 44
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.04.15
16:41:33 +0530
10. PW3 Birender Dutt deposed that in the year 2013, he
was working as office in-charge, Building Department, Shahdara,
North Zone, EDMC, Delhi. PW3 had been working in the said
department since 2011. There was no file of property no.
12A/107B, Jamalu Ka Bagh, Main Road, Maujpur in their office.
Whenever, office received any information about unauthorized
construction, AE and JE would take action u/s 343/344 DMC
Act. Police interrogated PW3 and he gave written reply,
Ex.PW3/A in his handwriting.
11. PW4 Nabi Hasan deposed that in the month of July,
2013, he was working as a construction labour with contractor
Furkan, who used to give money to PW4 and other labourers for
their wages. During July, 2013, they were working at a building
situated at Jamalu Ka Baag, Gali No. 1, Maujpur, Delhi on behalf
of contractor Furkan. Accused Mehrajuddin was the owner of the
building. On the intervening night of 05/06.07.2013, he was
working at the abovesaid building and suddenly, it got collapsed
due to which, PW4 received minor injury.
12. PW5 Ikram deposed that in the month of July, 2013,
he was working as a construction labour with contractor Furkan,
who used to give money to PW5 and other labourers for their
wages. During July, 2013, he along with some other labourers
were working at a building situated at Jamalu Ka Baag, Gali No.
1, Maujpur, Delhi on behalf of contractor Furkan. Accused
Mehrajuddin was the owner of the building. On the intervening
night of 05/06.07.2013, he was working at the abovesaid building
and suddenly, it got collapsed due to which, PW5 received minor
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 8 of 44
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.04.15
16:41:39 +0530
injury.
13. PW6 SI Pramod deposed that on 06.07.2013, he was
posted as HC at PS Jafrabad. On that day, he was working as DO
and his working hours were from 12 midnight to 8 AM. On that
day at about 1.54 AM, he registered the DD No. 4B, Ex.PW6/A
(OSR). On that day at about 5.30 AM, Ct. Joginder came at the
PS, Jafrabad and handed over the original rukka for registration
of FIR on which, he made endorsement, Ex.PW6/B. PW6
registered the FIR No. 211/2013, Ex.PW6/C (OSR) and handed
over the same to Ct. Joginder.
14. PW7 Iqbal deposed that in the month of July, 2013, he
was working as a construction labour with contractor Furkan,
who used to give money to PW7 and other labourers for their
wages. During July, 2013, they were working at a building
situated at Jamalu Ka Baag, Gali No. 1, Maujpur, Delhi on behalf
of contractor Furkan. Accused Mehrajuddin was the owner of the
building. On the intervening night of 05/06.07.2013, he was
working at the abovesaid building and suddenly, it got collapsed
due to which, PW7 received injury on his chest and other body
parts.
15. PW8 Ehsaan deposed that in the month of July, 2013,
he was working as a construction labour with contractor Furkan,
who used to give money to PW8 and other labourers for their
wages. During July, 2013, they were working at a building
situated at Jamalu Ka Baag, Gali No. 1, Maujpur, Delhi on behalf
of contractor Furkan. Accused Mehrajuddin was the owner of the
building. On the intervening night of 05/06.07.2013, he was
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 9 of 44
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
RAJAT
RAJAT 2026.04.15
16:41:44
+0530
working at the abovesaid building and suddenly, it got collapsed
due to which, PW8 received injury on his head and other parts of
body.
16. PW9 Nawab Ali deposed that in the month of July,
2013, he was working as a construction labour with contractor
Furkan, who used to give money to PW9 and other labourers for
their wages. During July, 2013, they were working at a building
situated at Jamalu Ka Baag, Gali No. 1, Maujpur, Delhi on behalf
of contractor Furkan. Accused Mehrajuddin was the owner of the
building. On the intervening night of 05/06.07.2013, he was
working at the abovesaid building and suddenly, it got collapsed
due to which, PW9 received injury on his head and other parts of
body. PW9 failed to identify the photographs of spot, Ex.P1.
17. PW10 Akhtar deposed that on in the month of July,
2013, he was working as a construction labour with contractor
Furkan, who used to give money to PW10 and other labourers for
their wages. During July, 2013, they were working at a building
situated at Jamalu Ka Baag, Gali No. 1, Maujpur, Delhi on behalf
of contractor Furkan. Accused Mehrajuddin was the owner of the
building. On the intervening night of 05/06.07.2013, he was
working at the abovesaid building and suddenly, it got collapsed
due to which, PW10 received injury on his back. PW10 admitted
in the cross-examination of Ld. Addl. PP that contractor Furkan
was also with them at the time of collapse of building and he was
died in that collapse.
18. PW11 Shamshul deposed that in the month of July,
2013, he was working as a construction labour with contractor
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 10 of 44
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.04.15
16:41:49 +0530
Furkan, who used to give money to PW11 and other labourers for
their wages. During July, 2013, they were working at a building
situated at Jamalu Ka Baag, Gali No. 1, Maujpur, Delhi on behalf
of contractor Furkan. Accused Mehrajuddin was the owner of the
building. On the intervening night of 05/06.07.2013, he was
working at the abovesaid building and suddenly, it got collapsed
due to which, PW11 received injury on his back. PW11 admitted
in the cross-examination of Ld. Addl. PP that contractor Furkan
was also with them at the time of collapse of building and he was
died in that collapse.
19. PW12 Sonawar deposed that in the month of July,
2013, he was working as a construction labour with contractor
Furkan, who used to give money to PW12 and other labourers for
their wages. During July, 2013, they were working at a building
situated at Jamalu Ka Baag, Gali No. 1, Maujpur, Delhi on behalf
of contractor Furkan. On the intervening night of 05/06.07.2013,
he was working at the abovesaid building and suddenly, it got
collapsed due to which, PW12 received injury on his back. PW12
admitted in the cross-examination of Ld. Addl. PP that contractor
Furkan was also with them at the time of collapse of building and
he was died in that collapse.
20. PW13 Illyas deposed that in the month of July, 2013,
he was working as a construction labour with contractor Furkan,
who used to give money to PW13 and other labourers for their
wages. During July, 2013, they were working at a building
situated at Jamalu Ka Baag, Gali No. 1, Maujpur, Delhi on behalf
of contractor Furkan. On the intervening night of 05/06.07.2013,
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 11 of 44
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.04.15
16:41:54 +0530
he was working at the abovesaid building and suddenly, it got
collapsed due to which, PW13 received injury on his finger.
PW13 admitted in the cross-examination of Ld. Addl. PP that
contractor Furkan was also with them at the time of collapse of
building and he was died in that collapse.
21. PW14 Riyasat Hussain deposed that in the month of
July, 2013, he was working as a construction labour with
contractor Furkan, who used to give money to PW14 and other
labourers for their wages. During July, 2013, they were working
at a building situated at Jamalu Ka Baag, Gali No. 1, Maujpur,
Delhi on behalf of contractor Furkan. On the intervening night of
05/06.07.2013, he was working at the abovesaid building and
suddenly, it got collapsed due to which, PW14 received injury on
his back, head and hand and he was taken to GTB Hospital where
he received treatment. Later on, PW14 came to know that
contractor Furkan had died in the incident. PW14 admitted in the
cross-examination of Ld. Addl. PP that contractor Furkan was
also with him and others at the time of collapse of building.
22. PW15 Urmaan Ali deposed that in the month of July,
2013, he was working as a construction labour with contractor
Furkan, who used to give money to PW15 and other labourers for
their wages. During July, 2013, they were working at a building
situated at Jamalu Ka Baag, Gali No. 1, Maujpur, Delhi on behalf
of contractor Furkan. On the intervening night of 05/06.07.2013,
he was working at the abovesaid building and suddenly, it got
collapsed due to which, PW15 received injury on his head and
hand and he was taken to GTB Hospital where he received
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 12 of 44
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.04.15
16:41:59 +0530
treatment. Later on, PW15 came to know that contractor Furkan
had died in the incident. PW15 admitted in the cross-examination
of Ld. Addl. PP that contractor Furkan was also with them at the
time of collapse of building.
23. PW16 Aslam deposed that in the month of July, 2013,
he was working as a construction labour with contractor Furkan,
who used to give money to PW16 and other labourers for their
wages. During July, 2013, they were working at a building
situated at Jamalu Ka Baag, Gali No. 1, Maujpur, Delhi on behalf
of contractor Furkan. On the intervening night of 05/06.07.2013,
he was working at the abovesaid building and suddenly, it got
collapsed due to which, PW16 received injury on his back and
legs and he was taken to GTB Hospital where he received
treatment. Later on, PW16 came to know that contractor Furkan
had died in the incident. PW16 admitted in the cross-examination
of Ld. Addl. PP that contractor Furkan was also with them at the
time of collapse of building.
24. PW17 Mohd. Yasin deposed that in the month of July,
2013, he was working as a construction labour with contractor
Furkan, who used to give money to PW17 and other labourers for
their wages. During July, 2013, they were working at a building
situated at Jamalu Ka Baag, Gali No. 1, Maujpur, Delhi on behalf
of contractor Furkan. On the intervening night of 05/06.07.2013,
he was working at the abovesaid building and suddenly, it got
collapsed due to which, PW17 received injury on his right arm
and other parts of body. He was taken to GTB Hospital where he
received treatment. Later on, PW17 came to know that contractor
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 13 of 44
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.04.15
16:42:04 +0530
Furkan had died in the incident. PW17 admitted in the cross-
examination of Ld. Addl. PP that contractor Furkan was also with
them at the time of collapse of building.
25. PW18 Abdul Hasan deposed that in the month of July,
2013, he was working as a construction labour with contractor
Furkan, who used to give money to PW18 and other labourers for
their wages. During July, 2013, they were working at a building
situated at Jamalu Ka Baag, Gali No. 1, Maujpur, Delhi on behalf
of contractor Furkan. On the intervening night of 05/06.07.2013,
he was working at the abovesaid building and suddenly, it got
collapsed due to which, PW18 received injury on his left hand
and other parts of body. He was taken to GTB Hospital where he
received treatment. Later on, PW18 came to know that contractor
Furkan had died in the incident. PW18 admitted in the cross-
examination of Ld. Addl. PP that contractor Furkan was also with
them at the time of collapse of building.
26. PW19 Ahmad Sahid deposed that in the month of
July, 2013, he was working as a construction labour with
contractor Furkan, who used to give money to PW19 and other
labourers for their wages. During July, 2013, they were working
at a building situated at Jamalu Ka Baag, Gali No. 1, Maujpur,
Delhi on behalf of contractor Furkan. On the intervening night of
05/06.07.2013, he was working at the abovesaid building and
suddenly, it got collapsed due to which, PW19 received injury on
his right arm. He was taken to GTB Hospital where he received
treatment. Later on, PW19 came to know that contractor Furkan
had died in the incident. PW19 admitted in the cross-examination
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 14 of 44
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.04.15
16:42:09 +0530
of Ld. Addl. PP that contractor Furkan was also with them at the
time of collapse of building.
27. PW20 Mohd. Ilyas deposed that in July, 2013, he
was working as Executive Engineer, M-IV, Shahdara, EDMC,
Delhi. On 05.07.2013, he issued a notice, Ex.PW20/A bearing
no. EEM-IV/Shahdara North/2013-14/313, u/s 348 MCD Act,
1947 to accused Mehrajuddin, owner of H.No. 12A/107D, Main
66 Ft. Road, Maujpur, Ward No. 252, Delhi and one copy was
pasted on said house and also sent to SHO, PS Jafrabad,
Ex.PW20/B, accused Mehrajuddin, AE and Ex. En, MCD.
28. PW21 Tarun Kumar deposed that in July, 2013, he
was working as Tehsildar (Shahdara), Delhi and he was not
present at the time of collapse of the building i.e. H.No.
12A/107D, Main 66 Ft. Road, Maujpur,Ward No. 252, Delhi.
PW21 reached the spot 11 hours (approx), after the collapse of
building. As per the directions of SDM Shahdara, Sh. Anil
Bhatnagar, he visited the spot and informed him about the
incident. PW21 had submitted the written submissions on
03.12.2021 before the Court.
29. PW22 Satybir Singh deposed that on 05.07.2013, he
was working as Sanitary Inspector/MCD Corporation, Shahdara
North, Delhi. On that day, as per the directions of Deputy
Commissioner/MCD Office, Shahdara North Zone, Delhi and his
senior officials, he visited the building i.e. H.No. 12A/107D,
Main 66 Ft. Road, Maujpur, Ward No. 252, Delhi at about 9-10
PM. At that time, the aforesaid building was titled towards one
side, but the same had not collapsed. PW22 returned from the
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 15 of 44
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.04.15
16:42:15
+0530
spot and narrated the situation/status of building to his senior
officials.
30. PW23 SI Abhay Pal deposed that on 05.07.2013, he
was posted as HC at PS Jafrabad. On that day, he was working as
DO from 4 PM to 12 midnight. At about 5.50 pm, he registered
DD no. 30A, Ex.PW1/A (OSR).
31. PW24 ACP Anil Kumar deposed that on 25.05.2014
and 20.06.2014, he made inquiries from Virender Dutt, In-charge
Record (Building) and Praveen Kumar, JE (Building-II), MCD,
Shahdara Zone, Delhi. Thereafter, he got transferred from PS
Jafrabad.
32. PW25 ACP Sudesh Ranga deposed that on
06.07.2013, he was posted as Inspector/SHO at PS Jafrabad. On
that day, after registration of present FIR, further investigation of
the present case was marked to him. PW25 along with police
staff went to the spot i.e. Premises No. 12A/107D, Jamalu ka
Bagh, Gali No. 1, Maujpur, Delhi and prepared the site plan,
Ex.PW25/A at the instance of 1st IO/SI Lalit Mohan and HC
Praveen. PW25 got the spot photographed through a private
photographer. PW25 correctly identified the spot i.e. aforesaid
building Premises No. 12A/107D, Jamalu ka Bagh, Gali No. 1,
Maujpur, Delhi in 12 photographs, Ex.P1 (colly). Thereafter he
received information that one injured Furkan had been declared
brought dead at GTB Hospital. PW25 added offence u/s 304 IPC
in the present case and he searched accused Mehrajuddin, but in
vain. PW25 went to the GTB Hospital and collected the MLCs of
other injured persons.
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 16 of 44
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.04.15
16:42:20
+0530
33. PW25 further deposed that in the MLC No. D1 dt.
06.07.2013 of injured Illyas, the doctor opined the injuries as
grievous in nature. On the MLCs of other injured persons i.e.
from D2 to D14, the doctor opined the nature of injuries as
simple in nature. PW25 got conducted the postmortem of
deceased Furkan at the mortuary of GTB Hospital through SI
Lalit Mohan and the dead body was handed over to brother of
deceased namely Farhaan. Thereafter, PW25 searched accused
Mehrajuddin, but in vain. On 06.07.2013, he recorded the
statements of HC Praveen, Ct. Joginder, HC Rampal, injured
persons namely Mohd. Akhtar, Shamshul, Samad, Sanovar,
Illyas, Nabi Hasan, Ikram, Iqbal, 1st IO/SI Lalit Mohan u/s 161
Cr.PC. On 11.07.2013, he recorded the statement of injured
Mohd. Yasin and on 25.07.2013, he recorded the statements of
injured persons namely Nawab Ali, Abdullah Hasan, Mohd.
Ehsan, Urmaan Ali, Riyasat Husain, Ahmad Shahid and Aslam
u/s 161 Cr.PC.
34. PW25 further deposed that he collected the PM
Report of deceased Furkan. Accused Mehrajuddin moved his
anticipatory bail application, but the same was dismissed by
Hon’ble Sessions Court. Thereafter, accused Mehrajuddin filed
anticipatory bail before Hon’ble High Court on the ground that
he had given compensation to the family members of deceased
Furkan and other injured persons. As per the directions of
Hon’ble High Court, he verified that fact from the injured
persons and relative of deceased. PW25 collected the copy of
receipts (attested by him) from injured Nabi Husan, Ikram, Iqbal,
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 17 of 44
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
RAJAT
RAJAT 2026.04.15
16:42:26
+0530
Abdul Hasan, Nawab Ali, Ehsan, Urmaan, Riyasat, Mohd.
Akhtar, Samad, Mohd. Yaseen (relative of deceased Furkan),
Mohd. Illyas and Mohd. Aslam, Ex.PW25/B, Ex.PW25/C,
Ex.PW25/D, Ex.PW25/E, Ex.PW25/F, Ex.PW25/G, Ex.PW25/H,
Ex.PW25/I, Ex.PW25/J, Ex.PW25/K, Ex.PW25/L, Ex.PW25/M
and Ex.PW25/N respectively.
35. PW25 further deposed that on 10.07.2013, he served a
notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. bearing no. 1235 dt. 10.07.2013 seeking
certain details about the above said building, to the MCD, North
Zone, Shahdara, Delhi. In reply to the same, Deputy Assessor
and Collector, Shahdara (North Zone) MCD gave his written
reply, Ex.PW25/O along with copy of property tax return,
Ex.PW25/P. On 24.07.2013, he served a notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C.,
Ex.PW25/Q to the Executive Engineer (MCD).
36. PW25 further deposed that on 30.07.2013, he came to
know about the name and mobile number of MCD official
namely Praveen and Virender Dutt from the reply of MCD
officials and came to know that no record was available in their
office regarding the aforesaid building. On 05.08.2013 and
07.08.2013, he interrogated the MCD official namely Virender
Dutt and Praveen Kumar vide interrogation report Ex.PW3/A and
Ex.PW2/A respectively.
37. PW25 further deposed that Praveen Kumar (JE)
disclosed that from 10.06.2013 to 14.06.2013, the aforesaid
building was inspected by them, but no written report was
prepared by them. During investigation, PW25 analyzed the call
details of mobile of accused Mehrajuddin and that of Virender
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 18 of 44
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
RAJAT
RAJAT 2026.04.15
16:42:31
+0530
Dutt (In-charge record), Praveen Kumar (JE), AS Meena (AE)
and OP Ojha (Ex.En.), but nothing incriminating came on record.
On 13.08.2013, accused got anticipatory bail from the Hon’ble
High Court. On 22.08.2013, accused Mehrajuddin was arrested
by PW25 vide arrest memo, Ex.PW25/R and released on bail
(anticipatory). Personal search of accused Mehrajuddin was also
conducted vide memo, Ex.PW25/S. PW25 collected the copy of
log book (police control room/NE), Ex.PW25/T. Thereafter, he
got transferred from PS Jafrabad. PW25 correctly identified
accused Mehrajuddin in the Court.
38. PW26 Inspector Brijesh Malik deposed that on
06.04.2020, he was posted as ATO, PS Jafrabad. On that day,
further investigation of the present case was marked to him and
he collected the case file from MHC(R). On 23.11.2020, he
served a notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C., Ex.PW26/A to accused
Mehrajuddin and on 26.11.2020, he submitted his written reply
to him, Ex.PW26/B. Along with reply, accused Mehrajuddin
produced photocopy of structure work, copy of Aadhar Card,
photocopy of ownership proof of H. No. 12A/107D, Jamalu ka
Bagh, Gali No. 1, Maujpur, Delhi, Ex.PW26/C, Ex.PW26/D and
Ex.PW26/E respectively. During investigation, he inspected the
above said spot and at that time, it was built up to 2 floors and at
the ground floor, there was a garment shop and the aforesaid
building was being looked after by nephew of accused namely
Faisal in 2020. Accused Mehrajuddin was interrogated and he
disclosed that there was no written agreement between him and
deceased Furkan and it was merely an oral agreement and there
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 19 of 44
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.04.15
16:42:36 +0530
was only structure work mentioned on a plain paper, Ex.PW26/C.
39. PW26 further deposed that after completion of
investigation, he came to conclusion that accused Mehrajuddin
was the owner of aforesaid building and on the day of incident,
deceased Furkan started demolishing/pulling down work through
his worker at his instance and there was no enough light at the
spot at the time of demolition. There was no civil engineer/expert
present at the spot at the time of incident and there were no use
of security equipments at the spot for the purpose of demolition.
PW26 prepared the charge-sheet and submitted before the Court.
40. PW27 ACP Rajesh Sharma deposed that on
13.01.2019, he was posted as ATO/Inspector at PS Jafrabad. On
that day, further investigation of the present case was marked to
him. PW27 collected the case file from MHC(R). PW27 made
efforts to interrogate the MCD officials namely Virender and
Praveen, but their presence/place of posting could not be found
even after making efforts at MCD Office, Shahdara Zone, Delhi.
41. PW28 Retd. SI Rampal deposed that on 26.05.2013,
he was posted as HC at PS Jafrabad. On that day, he was on
patrolling duty and when he reached near H. No. 12A/107D,
Jamalu ka Bag, Gali No. 1, Maujpur, Main Road 66, Delhi, he
saw that unauthorized construction was going on at above said
house and the basement and ground floor of the above said house
were appearing to be old construction and the first floor of the
building was appearing to be new construction. Further
construction was going on at the 2nd floor of said building.
Accused Mehrajuddin was the owner of building and also present
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 20 of 44
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
RAJAT
RAJAT 2026.04.15
16:42:41
+0530
there, but he failed to produce any permission of MCD regarding
the construction work. PW28 gave information regarding
unauthorized construction at MCD telephonically vide complaint
no. 372 dt. 26.05.2013. PW28 filled the form regarding
unauthorized construction and handed over the same to Reader of
SHO, PS Jafrabad and disclosed about the present situation.
PW28 recorded information regarding that unauthorized
construction in rojnamcha vide diary no. 20B dt. 26.03.2013,
Ex.PW28/A.
42. PW28 further deposed that SHO of PS Jafrabad also
gave information vide DD No. 67-UC dt. 28.05.2013 at the office
of Executive Engineer, North Zone Shahdara, MCD Delhi and at
the office of SDM Shahdara on 29.05.2013. On 05.07.2013, in
the evening one PCR call was received regarding the cracks in
the above said building and PW28 reached the said building and
cordoned it with the help of police staff and restricted the
movement of public persons near the above said building in order
to prevent any mishappening. He also got vacated the adjoining
buildings. MCD officials also reached at the above said building,
who gave notice to accused Mehrajuddin, which was received by
his nephew namely Faisal and warned accused Mehrajuddin to
take necessary action. SHO Sudesh Ranga objected accused
Mehrajuddin as he was demolishing the building through
labourers and it was the duty of MCD official to demolish the
building, but accused Mehrajuddin started demolishing the above
said building even in the presence of MCD officials.
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 21 of 44
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.04.15
16:42:47 +0530
43. PW28 further deposed that at about 01:45 -02:00 am,
one large portion of above said building fell down and PW28
called 100 number from his mobile phone, upon which fire
brigade and reserved force of HRD-1 reached there and started
the rescue work. IO prepared the site plan, Ex.PW25/A at his
instance. IO recorded his statement. PW28 correctly identified
accused Mehrajuddin in the Court.
44. It is further in evidence against you that PW29 ASI
Parveen Kumar deposed that he was working as Reader to SHO
PS Jafrabad, Delhi. PW29 had brought copy of order bearing no.
19185/HAR/NE dt. 12.07.2024, Ex.PW29/A passed by ACP
Headquarters regarding the destruction of old record i.e. record
pertaining year upto 31.12.2020, PS Jafrabad. Hence, the relevant
record pertaining to the present case could not be produced due
to destruction/weeding out of the said record upto year 2020 of
PS Jafrabad.
45. PW30 SI Praveen Kumar deposed that on 05.07.2013,
he was working as HC at PS Jafrabad. On that day, he was on
night emergency duty from 8 PM to 8 AM. At about 2 AM, he
received DD no. 4B dated 06.07.2013 by Ct. Joginder regarding
the fall of building. He along with Ct. Joginder immediately
reached at the spot i.e. Building no. 12A/107-D, Gali no. 10,
Jamalu Ka Bagh, Main 66 Feet Road, Maujpur, Delhi where the
police staff of PS Jafrabad was already present and the traffic was
already cordoned of near the abovesaid building. He found that
the upper most roof had fallen down. IO/Inspector Sudesh Ranga,
SI Lalit Mohan and other police staff of PS Jafrabad were present
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 22 of 44
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
RAJAT
RAJAT 2026.04.15
16:42:52
+0530
there and started the rescue work. PW30 along with Ct. Joginder
and SI Lalit went to GTB Hospital and CAT Ambulance carrying
injured persons. In the hospital, 15 persons were found in injured
condition and one Furkan was found to be brought dead, but his
relatives took him to some other hospital in a Santro Car.
46. PW30 further deposed that one injured Navi Hussain
did not receive any visible injury as per the examination of
doctor. One Mohd. Yaseen was admitted at Trauma Centre, ISBT.
PW30 correctly identified photographs Ex. P1 (Colly) as
belonging to the abovesaid building.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED u/s 351 BNSS
47. Statement of accused Mehrajuddin was recorded u/s
351 BNSS on 28.03.2026 and he denied the incriminating
evidence put to him. He stated that those witnesses are interested,
false and planted witnesses. It is a false case and he has been
charge-sheeted in this case only on the basis of that he was the
owner of the property although there was no overt act or
negligence in any manner on his part and he was not responsible
for the fall of the building. After the incident, being the owner of
the building on humanitarian ground, he gave compensation to
all the injured and family of the deceased, although he had no
role in any manner in the collapse of the building. He is innocent
person and praying for acquittal as he was falsely implicated in
the present case.
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 23 of 44
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.04.15
16:42:58 +0530
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE,
ANALYSIS OF WITNESSES AND FINDING
ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED
48. It is argued by Ld. counsel for accused that he has
been falsely implicated by the police and he was the owner of the
building, which got collapsed and there was no negligence on his
part in the demolition or fall of building. He was not present at
the spot when the building had fallen down or a day before when
building was surrounded by the police including SHO and ACP,
MCD officials, officials of DC Office and concerned SDM and it
was the duty of the MCD to demolish the said building as per the
prescribed procedure and there was no liability of accused to
demolish the same. Accused had not instructed contractor Furkan
or other labours to demolish the said building and all the
labourers have not deposed against the accused and turned
hostile. Accused was never served with any notice by the MCD
for demolition of said property and witnesses of MCD have
deposed that there was no new construction noticed by them.
PW1 stated deposed that it was the MCD officials, who insisted
upon demolition of building by contractor Furkan with labour
and it was only on the directions of MCD Officials, the building
was started to be demolished by Furkan and not on the directions
of accused Mehrajuddin, who was even not present on the spot
and no notice u/s 343/344 DMC Act was issued to the accused
for unauthorized construction. None of the public witnesses
identified the accused. There was no mens rea on the part of
accused. The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 24 of 44
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.04.15
16:43:03 +0530
reasonable doubt against the accused. Ld. Counsel for accused
filed the written arguments along with judgments.
1. Baldev Raj Kapur Vs. State, Crl. Rev. (P). 431/2005 and Crl.
M A No. 5436/05 dated 06.02.2009.
2. Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra,
2025 INSC 338.
3. Gulijeet Singh Kochar & Anr. Vs. State, 121 (2005) DLT 516.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. ADDL. PP FOR THE STATE
49. Ld. Addl. PP for State has argued that prosecution has
proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt as
accused was doing the unauthorized construction as earlier the
building was made upto basement and ground floor and the
structure of the building became weak due to unauthorized
construction of some upper floors as he had not taken the
permission from the MCD and all the public witnesses despite
their hostility have categorically deposed that they received
injury in the incident of fall of building and contractor Furkan
succumbed to his injuries and died. MCD had given notice to
him for pulling down the said unauthorized building. The
accused was negligent in the construction of said building and he
directed contractor Furkan and other labour to demolish the
building despite the same being tilted and his presence at the spot
was proved by PW1, PW25 IO and PW28. The accused
knowingly failed to take precautionary and safety measures,
which resulted in causing of injuries to the injured lobours, which
could have caused their death and the same resulted in death of
contractor Furkan. Death of Furkan is proved from his PMR and
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 25 of 44
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.04.15
16:43:08 +0530
IO and other witnesses have supported the case of prosecution.
50. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the
records.
51. The prosecution has examined 30 witnesses to prove
its case including complainant/victim.
52. The charge against accused persons is u/s
288/308/304 IPC.
Section 308 IPC. Attempt to commit culpable
homicide-
“Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge
and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death,
he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both;
and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”
Section 288 IPC. Negligent conduct with respect
to pulling down or repairing buildings-
“Whoever, in pulling down or repairing any building,
knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with that
building as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to
human life from the fall of that building, or of any part thereof,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may
extend to one thousand rupees, or with both”.
The charge against the accused persons is u/s 304
IPC. Culpable homicide is explained in Section 299 IPC.
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 26 of 44
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.04.15
16:43:13 +0530
Section 299 IPC Culpable Homicide:
“Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of
causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury
as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely
by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable
homicide’.
53. The present case was registered after fall of building
situated at Jamalu Ka Bagh, Gali No. 1, Maujpur, Delhi on
06.07.2013 at about 1.54 AM, which resulted in death of the
contractor Furkan and injuries to the labours, who were
demolishing the said building.
The following issues/facts needs to be decided to
prove the charge against the accused i.e.
Q.1 Whether accused was negligent in pulling down or
repairing the building in question so as to cause danger to human
life?
Q.2 Whether accused directed contractor Furkan or labour
to pull down the tilted unauthorized building without proper
precautionary and safety measures having knowledge that the
labour could sustain the injuries or they might die, if the building
had fallen?
Q.3 Whether due to the negligent act of accused in taking
proper precautionary and safety measures in pulling down of said
building, 15 labours sustained grievous/simple injuries and
contractor Furkan died?
PUBLIC WITNESSES/INJURED
54. PW4 Nabi Hasan, PW5 Iqram, PW7 Iqbal, PW8
Ehsan, PW9 Nawab Ali, PW10 Akhtar and PW11 Shamshul
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 27 of 44
KUMAR Digitally signed
by KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.04.15
16:43:18 +0530
have deposed that in July, 2013, they were working as
construction labour with contractor Furkan at a building Jamalu
Ka Bagh, Gali No. 1, Maujpur, Delhi on behalf of Furkan and on
the intervening night of 05/06.07.2013, the said building had
collapsed and its owner was accused Mehrajuddin. PW Nabi
Hasan and Iqram suffered minor injury. PW Ehsan and Nawab
Ali received injuries on their head and other parts. PW Shamshul
and Akhtar received injuries on their back and PW Iqbal received
injury on his chest.
55. All these witnesses turned hostile and during cross-
examination by Ld. APP they denied that the cracks appeared in
the aforesaid building in the evening of 05.07.2013 and someone
had called 100 number and police came there and vacated the
said building or that on 06.07.2013, accused Mehrajuddin stated
that they had to demolish the said building and they replied that
if said building had cracks, which were dangerous, but accused
stated that they had to work, if they wanted to get their dues or
that Furkan was with them at the time of collapse of building.
PW4 Nabi Hasan, PW5 Iqram, PW7 Iqbal, PW8 Ehsan, PW9
Nawab Ali, PW10 Akhtar and PW11 Shamshul stated these facts
even though they were confronted with their respective
statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW7/A,
Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW11/A, by Ld.
APP and did not support the case of prosecution.
56. PW12 Sonawar, PW13 Iliyas, PW14 Riyasat Hussain,
PW15 Urman Ali, PW16 Aslam, PW17 Mohd. Yaseen, PW18
Abdul Hasan and PW19 Ahmad Sahid deposed that in July, 2013,
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 28 of 44
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.04.15
16:43:22 +0530
they were working as construction labour with contractor Furkan
at a building Jamalu Ka Bagh, Gali No. 1, Maujpur, Delhi on
behalf of Furkan and on the intervening night of 05/06.07.2013,
the said building had collapsed. PW Sonawar and Iliyas received
injuries on their back and finger respectively. PW Riyasat
Hussain and Urman Ali received injuries on their head and hand
respectively. PW Aslam and Yasin received injuries on their
back/legs and right arm respectively. PW Abdul Hasan and
Ahmad Sahid received injuries on their left hand and right arm
respectively.
57. All these witnesses turned hostile and during cross-
examination by Ld. APP, they admitted that contractor Furkan
was with them at the time of collapse of building and he died in
the said collapse, which is contrary to the testimonies of PW4
Nabi Hasan, PW5 Iqram, PW7 Iqbal, PW8 Ehsan, PW9 Nawab
Ali, PW10 Akhtar and PW11 Shamshul, who deposed that
contractor Furkan was not with them at the time of collapse.
58. PW 12, PW13, PW14, PW15, PW16, PW17, PW18
and PW19 denied that accused Mehrajuddin was the owner of the
said building, which is contrary to testimonies of PW4, PW5,
PW7, PW8, PW9, PW10 and PW11, who have stated so.
59. PW 12, PW13, PW14, PW15, PW16, PW17, PW18
and PW19 denied that the cracks appeared in the aforesaid
building in the evening of 05.07.2013 and someone had called
100 number and police came there and vacated the said building
or that accused Mehrajuddin stated that they had to demolish the
said building and they replied that the said building had cracks,
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 29 of 44
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.04.15
16:43:28 +0530
which were dangerous, but accused stated that they had to work,
if they wanted to get their dues. PW 12, PW13, PW14, PW15,
PW16, PW17, PW18 and PW19 stated these facts even though
they were confronted with their statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C.,
Ex.PW12/A, Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW14/A, Ex.PW15/A,
Ex.PW16/A, Ex.PW17/A, Ex.PW18/A and Ex.PW19/A by Ld.
APP and did not support the case of prosecution.
60. PW4 Nabi Hasan, PW5 Iqram, PW7 Iqbal, PW8
Ehsan, PW9 Nawab Ali, PW10 Akhtar, PW11 Shamshul, PW12
Sonawar, PW13 Iliyas, PW14 Riyasat Hussain, PW15 Urman
Ali, PW16 Aslam, PW17 Mohd. Yaseen, PW18 Abdul Hasan and
PW19 Ahmad Sahid have not deposed at all that accused
Mehrajuddin told them to demolish the said building on the
intervening night of 05/06.07.2013. Rather, in their respective
cross-examinations by accused, PW10 Akhtar, PW11 Shamshul,
PW12 Sonawar, PW13 Iliyas, PW14 Riyast Hussain, PW15
Urman Ali, PW16 Aslam, PW17 Mohd. Yaseen, PW18 Abdul
Hasan and PW19 Ahmad Shahid admitted that before the
collapse of building several police and MCD officials were
present at the spot and on their asking, Furkan told them to enter
the building and demolish it.
61. Thus, from the testimonies of said public/injured
witnesses, it is not proved that deceased Furkan or other labours,
who suffered injuries entered the said building for pulling it
down on the directions of accused Mehrajuddin, rather they had
demolished it on the directions of police and MCD officials and
as such it is difficult to hold accused liable for negligence inState Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 30 of 44
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT Date: 2026.04.15
pulling down of building in question and consequently causing
death to contractor Furkan and injuries to labours i.e. abovesaid
PWs.
OFFICIAL WITNESSES
62. PW2 Praveen Kumar, JE, EDMC, Shahdara, North
Zone, Delhi deposed that in June, 2013, on the instructions of AE
concerned, he visited property 12A/107B, Jamalu Ka Bagh, Main
Road, Maujpur, Delhi in his jurisdiction and observed that it was
built upto 3rd floor from basement and minor repairs like plaster
etc. were going on, but there was no new construction and he did
not prepare any written report. He did not know its owner. He
gave his written reply to IO, Ex.PW2/A and that whenever they
received any information about any unauthorized construction,
they take action u/s 343/344 DMC Act, which is usually taken
against new construction. There was no file pertaining to said
property in their office.
63. PW3 Virender Dutt also corroborated the version of
PW2 that there was no file pertaining to said property and proved
his reply, Ex.PW3/A. From the testimonies of these witnesses, it
is apparent that there was only minor repair work being carried
out and no notice for unauthorized construction was issued by the
MCD to accused Mehrajuddin.
64. PW20 Mohd. Iliyas, who was Executive Engineer in
EDMC in July, 2013 deposed that he issued a notice u/s 348
DMC Act to its owner of said building Mehrajuddin, Ex.PW20/A
and it was also pasted on said building, Ex.PW20/B bearing
signature of accused Mehrajuddin. The said notice was issuedState Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 31 of 44
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.04.15
16:43:39 +0530
only on 05.07.2013 when the building was tilted and cordoned of
by the police and MCD officials and no notice was issued prior to
that and in the cross-examination of PW20, he admitted that it
was received by someone else on behalf of accused Mehrajuddin
and not the accused was directly served himself, which shows
that Mehrajuddin may or may not be having knowledge of said
notice and otherwise also, the said notice becomes irrelevant,
being issued after the building was already taken over by police
and MCD officials and no time is mentioned in the said notice.
65. PW21 is Tahsildar Shahdara, who deposed that he was
not present at the spot at the time of collapse and visited the spot
after incident and thus, his testimony is not relevant.
66. PW22 Satyabir Singh, Sanitary Inspector, MCD
deposed that he visited said building on 05.07.2013 between 9-10
PM, when it was tilted towards one side. His testimony only
proved that the building was tilted on 05.07.2013, which is not
disputed.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
67. The accused admitted the MLCs of injured Yaseen,
Ex.PA1, Sanawar, Ex.PA9 and Iliyas, Ex.PA10, which were
grievous in nature and that of Abdul Hasan, Ex.PA2, Nawab Ali,
Ex.PA3, Aslam, Ex.PA4, Mohd. Akhtar, Ex.PA5, Mohd.
Samshul, Ex.PA6 Ahmad Sahid, Ex.PA7, Mohd. Samad, Ex.PA8,
Riyasat Ali, Ex.PA11, Ehsan, Ex.PA12, Mohd. Iqbal, Ex.PA13,
Mohd. Iqram, Ex.PA14 and Urmaan Ali, Ex.PA15. It proves that
these persons suffered injuries in the collapse of building, but
they have not uttered a single word against accused Mehrajuddin
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 32 of 44
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
RAJAT
RAJAT 2026.04.15
16:43:44
+0530
in their testimonies that they were working on his instructions or
that accused forced them to pull down said building for wages
and thus, this medical evidence does not prove the charge against
the accused.
68. Accused also admitted the PMR of deceased Furkan,
Ex.PA16 in which there are 22 ante-mortem injuries and cause of
death is shock as a result of ante-mortem injury to cervical
vertebral column produced by blunt force impact. The death of
Furkan is not disputed, but it has come in the testimony of
witnesses that it was the MCD and police officials, which forced
Furkan and other labour/PWs to demolish the building and not
accused Mehrajuddin and during demolition, building fell flat
resulting into death of Furkan.
POLICE WITNESSES
69. PW1 SI Lalit Mohan Singh proved DD No. 30A,
Ex.PW1/A in which it is recorded that said building was about to
collapse, which is corroborated by PW23 SI Abhay Pal. PW1
reached the spot and saw that plaster was about to fall and there
were some cracks and building was about to collapse and
Tahsildar, Executive Engineer of MCD and SDM reached there
and police stopped the traffic and asked MCD to take action as
per law and they stated that they had already issued notice to
demolish the said building on its own, else MCD would take
action. The said notice was allegedly issued on 05.07.2013 itself
and not prior to that, so it was the duty of MCD to take over the
tilted building, which was about to collapse, in their possession
and get it demolished as per the prescribed norms after takingState Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 33 of 44
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.04.15
16:43:49 +0530
necessary precautions, rather MCD officials had directed the
accused Mehrajuddin to demolish the building on its own, which
shows the negligence on the part of police and MCD, rather than
accused.
70. PW1 in his cross-examination admitted that MCD is
the proper authority in Delhi to declare any building as illegal or
unauthorized and whether it is to be demolished or not, but in this
case, the relevant notice for declaring it illegal/unauthorized, was
issued when all the authorities came at the spot after the building
was tilted on 05.07.2013 i.e. a day prior to its collapse and PW2
and PW3 have categorically deposed that there was no file
pertaining to unauthorized construction of said building in the
office of MCD. PW1 further stated that ACP, DCP, MCD Staff,
SDM, Tahsildar and other officials of DCP office also reached
there and concerned ACP asked MCD and DC Staff to carry out
the demolition as it required special technique/skill for
demolition, but MCD official insisted upon demolition of same
by contractor Furkan with his labour, which proves that accused
Mehrajuddin had not directed Furkan and labour to demolish the
building, rather MCD officials insisted them to do so.
71. PW1 in his examination in chief deposed that
Mehrajuddin was present at spot, but in the cross-examination, he
stated that he was not present, which are contrary versions. PW1
proved the Tahrir, Ex.PW1/C and his application for postmortem,
Ex.PW1/D and that dead body of Furkan was identified by his
brother Farhan and relative Mohd. Shakir, vide memo, Ex.PW1/F
and Ex.PW1/G, but the same is not disputed.
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 34 of 44
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
RAJAT
RAJAT 2026.04.15
16:44:00
+0530
72. PW6 SI Pramod proved DD No. 4B dated
06.07.2013, Ex.PW6/A, his endorsement on rukka, Ex.PW6/B
and registration of FIR, Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/A is corrborated
by PW30 regarding fall of building, but that is not disputed by
accused and does not prove the offence against the accused.
73. Testimonies of PW24 ACP Anil Kumar, PW27 ACP
Rajesh Sharma and PW29 ASI Praveen are irrelevant as they
have not deposed anything against accused nor produced any
document and PW29 produced the destruction of old record
order, Ex.PW29/A.
74. PW30 reached the spot and saw that upper roof had
fallen down and Inspector Sudesh Ranga, PW1 Lalit Mohan and
other police of PS Jafrabad were present there and injured were
shifted to GTB and one Furkan was dead and he identified the
said building in the photographs, Ex.P1. He has not deposed
against accused.
75. PW28 SI Rampal deposed that on 26.05.2013, he saw
unauthorized construction at the said building, which was an old
construction and only first floor was newly constructed and
construction was going on at second floor and its owner was
Merajuddin, who failed to produce any permission from MCD
and he gave information to MCD telephonically and recorded the
information vide DD no. 20B, Ex.PW28/A. Despite the
intimation by PW28, no notice was given by MCD to the accused
nor they declared the building unauthorized/illegal.
76. PW28 also deposed that SHO Sudesh Ranga objected
accused Merajuddin as he was demolishing the building throughState Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 35 of 44
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
RAJAT
RAJAT 2026.04.15
16:44:06
+0530
labours and it was duty of MCD to demolish the building, but he
started demolishing the same in the presence of MCD officials,
but version of PW28 is contrary to the testimony of PW1, who
stated that it was the MCD officials, who insisted upon
demolition of said building by contractor Furkan with his labour.
77. In his cross-examination, PW28 admitted that he
never visited the building after 26.05.2013 till its collapse and
that it is the duty of MCD to visit, inspect and verify new
construction or to take further action for unauthorized
construction and he stated that accused Mehrajuddin was not
present on 05.07.2013 at the abovesaid building and notice was
given to his nephew Faisal, which shows that Mehrajuddin was
not aware of the notice as it cannot be presumed that Faisal had
told about the notice to Mehrajuddin and PW28 also admitted
that it was a duty of MCD to demolish the building due to its
knowledge and expertise and SHO, Jafrabad asked MCD
officials to do the demolition, but MCD pressurized Furkan to
demolish the same with his labours and thus, the version of
PW28 is self-contradictory and from his testimony it becomes
highly doubtful that accused Mehrajuddin asked Furkan and his
labour to demolish the said building.
78. PW25 ACP Sudesh Ranga IO of this case deposed
that he recorded the statements of all the injured persons and
collected their MLCs, whose injuries were grievous and simple
and got conducted post-mortem of Furkan, but all the injured had
turned hostile and death of Furkan is not disputed and that during
investigation, he came to know that there was no office recordState Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 36 of 44
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.04.15
16:44:13 +0530
pertaining to said building in the MCD record and nothing
incriminating was found from the CDR of mobile of accused
Mehrajuddin and accused was arrested formally vide arrest
memo, Ex.PW25/R after his anticipatory bail and nothing
incriminating was recovered from his personal search,
Ex.PW25/S and he proved the site plan, Ex.PW25/A and
identified the photographs of spot, Ex.P1, but the spot is not
disputed.
79. In the cross-examination of PW25, he admitted that he
interrogated accused vide memo, Ex.PW25/DX1 and he could
not produce the documents and he stated that demolition was got
started at the instance of Ex.En. and there was no CDR or
location chart of Mehrajuddin on record, which makes it doubtful
that he was on the spot or not. PW25 proved that all the injured
received the compensation from the accused after making inquiry
on the directions of Hon’ble High Court.
80. PW26 proved the notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. to accused,
Ex.PW26/A to provide the ownership documents and agreement
with Furkan to pull down the building and permission from MCD
for construction, but that notice was issued on 23.11.2020 i.e.
after many years of incident and there can be no agreement
between Furkan and accused for demolition of said building as
prosecution witnesses have deposed that it was demolished by
Furkan at the instance of MCD officials and there is no
ownership paper of the said building in the name of accused,
which belonged to his forefather and he replied the same vide
Ex.PW26/B and the said property was being looked after hisState Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 37 of 44
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.04.15
16:44:19 +0530
nephew Faisal in 2020, but Faisal was not made a witness. PW26
deposed that Furkan started demolition of said building at the
instance of accused, but he got associated with this case in 2020
and the incident was of 2013 and he was not present at the spot at
the time of incident and version of PW26 is contrary to the
versions of PW in this regard, PW4, PW5, PW7, PW8, PW9,
PW10, PW11, PW12, PW13, PW14, PW15, PW16, PW17,
PW18 and PW19, so his opinion is not based on complete facts
and is controverted by the other prosecution witnesses and he
admitted that he has not verified the signatures of accused on
structure work, Ex.PW26/C from the expert.
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE
81. Meaning of ‘negligence’. Though the term ‘negligence’
has not been defined in the Code, it may be stated that negligence
is the omission to do some thing which a reasonable man, guided
upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct
of human affairs would do, or doing something which a
reasonable and prudent man would not do.”
Negligence is a fault to do something which sensible
and responsible man commanded upon those discussions which
would ordinarily influence handling of human affairs, would do.
Negligence has been understood to be an omission to
do something which a reasonable man guided upon those
considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human
affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and
reasonable person would not do.” (Sushil Ansal Vs. State through
CBI, 2014 (6) SCC 173).
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 38 of 44
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.04.15
16:44:25 +0530
Meaning of criminal negligence.- Criminal negligence
means gross and culpable neglect, a failure to exercise that
reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard an individual
in particular against injury.
82. Rash and negligent act.- In the ancient decision of
Empress V. Idu Beg [ILR 3 All 776] , the topic was dealt with in the
following language: “Criminal rashness consists in hazarding a dangerous or
wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury, but
without intention to cause injury, or knowledge that it will probably cause.
The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with
recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is
the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and
proper case and precaution to guard against injury, either to the public
generally, or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the
circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was imperative duty of
accused person to have ‘adopted’.
Negligence in common parlance means and implies “failure to
exercise due care, expected of a reasonable and prudent person”. It is a
breach of duty and negligence in law ranging from inadvertence to shameful
disregard of the safety of others. In most instances, it is caused by
heedlessness or inadvertence, by which the negligent party is unaware of the
results which follow from his act.
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
83. The accused Mehrajuddin had taken defence that he
was charge-sheeted only on the basis of being owner and no
overt act or negligence was found on his part.
From the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, it is
not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the said building was
demolished by contractor Furkan and other labours on the
directions of accused Mehrajuddin, rather at the instance of MCD
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 39 of 44
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.04.15
16:44:31
+0530
officials, they started demolishing the building, which fell down
and accused Furkan died and other labour suffered injuries, but
none of these injured witnesses have supported the case of
prosecution nor levelled any allegations against accused
Mehrajuddin. As regards the unauthorized construction of the
building, no action was taken by MCD and no negligence was
found on the part of accused in the demolition of said building as
discussed in the preceding paras. Thus, the defence of accused
that there was no overt act or negligence on his part in the fall of
building appears to be plausible and probable.
84. In Baldev Raj Kapur (Supra), Hon’ble Delhi High
Court held that:
“27. In the present case petitioner happened to be owner of the
property, a layman and had not given any instructions to the labour and the
masons who were working there. There is no prima facie evidence to
indicate that the petitioner had been visiting the place often specially a day
or two earlier to the date of the incident. It cannot be said that there was any
direct nexus between the petitioner and the rash and negligent act killing six
workers and injuring eight workers due to collapse of the building.
Therefore, under the circumstances of the case even the ingredients
incorporated in Section 304A IPC are not made out against the petitioner.”
85. In Gulijeet Singh Kochar (Supra), Hon’ble Delhi High
Court set aside the impugned order of summoning the petitioner
and held
“7. That petitioners were the owners of house in question
where the basement was being constructed, but there is no material to
suggest that the construction of the basement was being done under their
direct supervision….”
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 40 of 44
Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
RAJAT 16:44:35
Date: 2026.04.15
+0530
86. In Kailash Gour and Ors. Vs. State of Assam reported
in MANU/SC/1505/2011, (2012) 2 SCC 34, Apex Court has
observed that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is a principle that cannot be sacrificed on
the altar or inefficiency, inadequacy or inept handling of the investigation by
the police. The benefit arising from any such faulty investigation ought to
go to the accused and not to the prosecution.
87. In Subramanya Vs. State of Karnataka, dt.
13.10.2022, in Crl. Appeal No. 242/2022, Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India has held that it is settled principle of law that when two
views are possible from the prosecution evidence, the one which is
favourable to the accused shall have to be taken and the benefit of doubt
shall have to be given to the accused.
88. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again held
that onus and duty to prove the case against the accused is upon
the prosecution and prosecution must establish the charge beyond
reasonable doubt. It is also a cardinal principle of criminal
jurisprudence that if there is a reasonable doubt with regard to the
accused, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt resulting in
acquittal of the accused. Reference may be made to the
Judgments titled as ‘Nallapati Sivaiah Vs. Sub Divisional Officer,
Guntur‘, reported as VIII (2007) SLT 454 (SC) in this respect.
Reference may also be made to the Judgment titled as ‘Raj
Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya Vs. State of Rajasthan‘, reported
as (2013) 5 SCC 722.
89. Thus, from the evidence surfaced on record during
trial, it could not be proved that it was the accused Mehrajuddin,
who directed Furkan and his labour to pull down the said
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 41 of 44
Digitally signed
by KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.04.15
16:44:41 +0530
building and was negligent in not taking proper safety and
precautionary measures on 05.07.2013 or 06.07.2013 and it has
come on record that the building was being pull down on the
instructions of MCD officials by the contractor and labour, who
died and sustained injuries respectively and thus, all the
questions framed for adjudication of charge are hereby answered
in negative and not against the accused Mehrajuddin. The
aforesaid judgments of Gulijeet Singh Kochar and Baldev Raj
Kapur (Supra) also supplement the defence of the accused that he
was not negligent in pulling down of said building and not liable
for death of contractor Furkan and injuries to other labour and is
entitled for benefit of doubt.
CONCLUSION
90. In the totality of the circumstances brought on record
by way of evidence, it is observed that the prosecution has failed
to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused
Mehrajuddin qua offences punishable u/s 288/308/304 IPC.
91. Consequently, the accused Mehrajuddin is acquitted
of the charges u/s 288/308/304 IPC.
The charts as per the judgment of Manojbhai
Jethabhai Parmar Vs. State of Gujarat, (CA No. 2973/2023) of
Hon’ble Supreme Court are annexed herewith.
File be consigned to Record Room after necessary
compliance. Digitally signed
KUMAR by KUMAR
RAJAT
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT RAJAT Date: 2026.04.15
16:44:48 +0530
ON THIS 15th DAY OF APRIL, 2026
(KUMAR RAJAT)
ASJ-07/SHD/KKD Court/Delhi
15.04.2026
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 42 of 44
Specimen Chart for Witnesses Examined.
Prosecution Name of Witness Description
Witnesses No.
1. PW4, PW5, Nabi Hasan, Iqram, Iqbal, Injured/Eye Witnesses
PW7, PW8, Ehsan, Nawab Ali, Akhtar,
PW9, PW10,
Shamshul, Sonawar, Iliyas,
PW11, PW12,
PW13, PW14, Riyasat Hussain, Urman
PW15, PW16, Ali, Aslam, Mohd. Yaseen,
PW17, PW18
Abdul Hasan and Ahmad
and PW19
Sahid
2. NA Witness of last seen
circumstances.
3. All MLCs (nature of Medical Jurists
injuries)/PMR admitted by
accused.
4. PW25 ACP Sudesh Ranga Investigating Officer
5. PW1 SI Lalit Mohan Complainant/First
Informant
Specimen Chart for Exhibited Documents.
Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by
No.
1. Inquest PW1
Panchnama/Memo, Ex.PW1/E
2. NA NA
3. Arrest Memo of accused: PW25
Mehrajuddin, Ex.PW25/R.
4. Post-mortem Report, Ex.PA16 Admitted by accused.
5. FSL Report NA
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 43 of 44
Digitally
signed by
KUMAR
KUMAR RAJAT
RAJAT Date:
2026.04.15
16:44:54
+0530
Specimen Chart for Material Objects/Muddamals.
Material Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by
Object No.
1. Weapon of offence. NA
2. Clothing accused/victim NA
3. Mobile Phone/Electronic Object NA
4. Vehicle NA
5. Purse/earrings/identity card NA
State Vs. Mehrajuddin FIR No. 211/2013 PS Jafrabad Page 44 of 44
KUMAR Digitally signed by
KUMAR RAJATRAJAT Date: 2026.04.15
16:44:58 +0530
