Delhi District Court
State vs Nitin Tyagi on 21 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA MITTAL
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-03
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI
State Vs Nitin Tyagi
DLCT12-000327-2015
CR No.24/2025
FIR No.415/2019
Police Station : Laxmi Nagar
Date of institution of the case : 28.03.2025
Date of reserving for judgment : 16.07.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 21.07.2026
a. Serial No. of the case CR No.24/2025
b. Date of commission of offence 29.11.2019
c. Name of the complainant Sh. A.K. Jain
d. Name, parentage and address Nitin Singh S/o late Sh.
of accused Krishan Dev Sharma R/o 24
C, Pocket-1, Mayur Vihar,
Phase-3, Delhi-110093
e. Offence complained of U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC
f. Plea of accused persons Pleaded not guilty
g. Final Order Acquittal
h. Date of Judgment 21.07.2026
Page no 1 of 19
FIR No.415/2019 PS: Laxmi Nagar
State Vs. Nitin Tyagi
Digitally signed
by NEHA
NEHA MITTAL
MITTAL Date:
2026.07.21
15:27:19 +0530
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this court shall proceed to decide the
instant matter emanating from the FIR no.415/2019 registered
under sections 186/353/332/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short
‘IPC‘).
2. The present FIR has been registered on the complaint of
Sh. A.K. Jain, Executive Engineer, DDA under Section
186/353/332/34 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as
IPC). As the accused was a sitting MLA at the time of incident,
the present case has been directed to be transferred to the
Designated Court vide order dated 06.10.2025 passed by Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi and has been assigned to this Court vide
order dated 30.10.2025 passed by Ld. CJM, RADC.
Brief Statement of Facts:
3. Succinctly stated, the facts of the present case, as per the
complaint dated 29.11.2019 are that work of restoration and
rejuvenation of River Yamuna flood plains was awarded to M/s
Walia Construction Company. It has been alleged that on
29.11.2019. at around 11:30 AM, a telephonic message was
received by the complainant that the accused Nitin Tyagi (the
then MLA of Laxmi Nagar) had come at site and manhandled the
contractor’s workers and torn off the government papers issued
to the contractors. On receiving this information, the complainant
along with the contractor Sh. Arvinder Singh Walia reached the
Page no 2 of 19
FIR No.415/2019 PS: Laxmi Nagar
State Vs. Nitin Tyagi
Digitally
signed by
NEHA NEHA MITTAL
Date:
MITTAL 2026.07.21
15:27:26
+0530
site where accused and his associates misbehaved and threatened
both of them to face consequences if any encroacher was
removed from the flood plains.
4. On receipt of the above complaint, the present FIR was
lodged on 30.11.2019. During investigation, statements of
witnesses u/s 161 CrPC were recorded and with respect to
sanction u/s 195 CrPC, letter dated 30.09.2022 was received on
behalf of DDA stating that DDA is not competent to issue
prosecution sanction against MLA.
Filing of Charge Sheet and Framing of Charge:
5. After the completion of investigation, Section
186/353/332 IPC were removed and charge-sheet was filed u/s
323/34 IPC on 28.03.2025.
6. Vide order dated 13.11.2025, directions for further
investigation were given, upon which supplementary charge-
sheet was filed on 29.11.2025. Cognizance in the present matter
u/s 186/323/332/353/34 IPC was taken vide order dated
06.12.2025.
7. Notice against the accused was framed u/s
186/323/427/34 IPC vide order dated 15.01.2026. Vide separate
statement of accused recorded u/s 330 BNSS dated 15.01.2026,
accused admitted the fact of registration of FIR Ex. A1,
certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act Ex. A2 and the fact that
Page no 3 of 19
FIR No.415/2019 PS: Laxmi Nagar
State Vs. Nitin Tyagi
Digitally signed
by NEHA
NEHA MITTAL
MITTAL Date:
2026.07.21
15:27:35 +0530
the charge-sheet was filed by IO/ASI Jivanand. In view thereof,
PW-HC Deepak Kumar and ASI Jivanand were dropped from the
list of witnesses.
Evidence Led By The Prosecution:
8. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined
07 witnesses in total, who are as under:-
Prosecution Name of the Witness Role of the witness
Witness
PW-1 Sh. Adish Kumar Jain ComplainantPW-2 Sh. Yusuf Ali Victim (proved statement
u/s 161 CrPC)
PW-3 Sh. Arvinder Singh Independent witness
Ahluwalia (proved statement u/s 161
CrPC)
PW-4 Dr. Shami Kumar Formal witness (proved
MLC’s no. 3768/19,
3769/19)
PW-5 Sh. Upender Kumar IO (filed supplementary
charge-sheet)
PW-6 Sh. Sarfaraj Victim (proved statement
u/s 161 CrPC)
PW-7 Sh. Inderveer Singh Investigating Officer
9. Further, to prove its case, the prosecution has relied upon
the following evidences/documents:
Sl. Description of Evidence Exhibits Proved By
No.
1. Complaint dated Ex.PW1/A PW-1
29.11.2019Page no 4 of 19
FIR No.415/2019 PS: Laxmi Nagar
State Vs. Nitin Tyagi
Digitally signed
by NEHA
NEHA MITTAL
MITTAL Date:
2026.07.21
15:27:43 +0530
2. Award letter to Walia Ex.PW1/B PW-1
Construction Company
3. Copy of the order passed by Ex.PW1/C PW-1
the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi dated 24.10.2019
4. Copy of the Hon’ble NGT Ex.PW1/D PW-1
order No. 6/2012
5. Order of Principal Ex.PW1/E PW-1
Commissioner
6. Horticulture and Landscape Ex. PW1/F PW-1
and copy of torn landscape
plan pasted on the chart
paper
7. Seizure memo Ex. PW1/G PW-1
8. Handwritten complaint Ex. PW2/A PW-2
dated 29.11.2019 under
signatures of PW-2 and
PW-6.
9. Complaint dated Ex. PW3/A PW-3
29.11.2019 given by PW-3.
11. MLC bearing no. 3768/19 Ex. PW4/A PW-4
12. MLC bearing no. 3769/19 Ex. PW4/B PW-4
13. Endorsement on the Ex. PW7/A PW-7
complaint dated 29.11.2019
14. Site Plan Ex. PW7/B PW-7
15. Pabandinama Ex. PW7/C PW-7
16. Reply to the prosecution Ex. PW7/D PW-7
sanction against Hon’ble
MLA
10. Before proceeding further, this court deems it
appropriate to discuss the role as well as crux and essence of thePage no 5 of 19
FIR No.415/2019 PS: Laxmi Nagar
State Vs. Nitin TyagiDigitally
signed by
NEHA NEHA MITTAL
Date:
MITTAL 2026.07.21
15:27:49
+0530
testimonies of the prosecution witness. The relevant portion of
their testimonies is being discussed hereunder.
11. PW-1 Adish Kumar Jain is the complainant who
deposed that on 29.11.2019, he was posted as Executive
Engineer, DDA. The tender for developing biodiversity park in
Yamuna floodplain area was awarded to Walia Construction
Company. He further deposed that as demolition programme was
to be undertaken at the above-mentioned site, precautionary
intimation was sent to the local police. He deposed that on
29.11.2019, the staff of the contractor was working at the site and
he left the site after giving instructions to his subordinate staff
who were also present there. He further deposed that at around
11:30 AM, he received call from one of his staff members who
told him that the local MLA accused Nitin Tyagi has come to the
spot along with his supporters and has beaten Yusuf Ali and
Sarfaraj (workers of the contractor), that the accused has torn the
site plan and is not allowing the workers to continue with work.
He further deposed that thereafter, he reached at the site where he
found that accused was already present and the supporters of the
accused were creating ruckus and saying “yeh bahut bada
engineer aaya hai, yahan koi kaam nahi hoga, koi jhuggi nahi
hategi, agar hatayi toh main dekh lunga.” Thereafter, police
officials came at the site and pacified the situation. He proved his
complaint Ex. PW1/A. He further stated that the contractor/PW-3
also gave one complaint to SHO with its copy to him. He further
Page no 6 of 19
FIR No.415/2019 PS: Laxmi Nagar
State Vs. Nitin Tyagi
Digitally
signed by
NEHA NEHA MITTAL
Date:
MITTAL 2026.07.21
15:27:59
+0530
deposed that he handed over documents i.e. award letter to Walia
Construction Company Ex. PW1/B, copy of order dated
24.10.2019 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi Ex. PW1/C,
copy of Hon’ble NGT Order No. 6/2012 Ex. PW1/D, order of
Principal Commissioner Ex. PW1/E and copy of torn landscape
plan Ex. PW1/F and the same were seized by IO vide seizure
memo Ex. PW1/G. He correctly identified the accused in the
Court. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
12. PW-2 Yusuf Ali deposed that in the month of
November 2019, he was working as site engineer in Walia
Construction Company and was doing demarcation work at
Yamuna-Khadar along with his supervisor Sarfaraj/PW-6. He
deposed that as demolition programme near Yamuna-Khadar was
fixed for that day, DDA officials and police officials were about
to come to the spot. The residents of the jhuggi gathered to
oppose and stop the work and one of them torn the site plan. He
further deposed that physical altercation took place between the
crowd and him along with his colleague, due to which they both
sustained injuries. He further deposed that he called his
Executive Engineer and contractor and when they both reached
the spot, they called senior officials of DDA to the spot and
thereafter, the matter was settled. He proved his complaint Ex.
PW2/A.
He deposed that accused was present in the crowd but he
failed to identify him in the Court due to lapse of time. Questions
Page no 7 of 19
FIR No.415/2019 PS: Laxmi Nagar
State Vs. Nitin Tyagi
Digitally signed
by NEHA
NEHA MITTAL
MITTAL Date:
2026.07.21
15:28:06 +0530
were put to him u/s 154 Evidence Act r/w the first proviso to
Section 162(1) Cr.PC. by Ld. Addl. PP for the State with the
permission of the Court. The witness was not cross-examined by
Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity.
13. PW-3 Arvinder Singh Ahluwalia deposed that in the
year 2019, his staff was deputed for work on a site in Asita East
where the workers were doing the demarcation process. He
deposed that he received a call from one of his workers
Yusuf/PW-2 who stated that a quarrel has taken place at the site
with local persons upon which he reached at the site but the
situation had already pacified by then. He stated that the then
local MLA was also present at the spot but he failed to identify
him in the Court due to lapse of time. He proved his complaint
Ex. PW3/A.
Questions were put to him u/s 154 Evidence Act by Ld.
Addl. PP for the State with the permission of the Court. The
witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
14. PW-4 Dr. Shani Kumar proved MLCs Ex. PW4/A and
Ex. PW4/B. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for
accused.
15. PW-5 SI Upender Kumar deposed that he prepared the
supplementary charge-sheet and filed it in the Court. He was not
cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity.
Page no 8 of 19
FIR No.415/2019 PS: Laxmi Nagar
State Vs. Nitin Tyagi
Digitally signed
by NEHA
NEHA MITTAL
MITTAL Date:
2026.07.21
15:28:12 +0530
16. PW-6 Sarfaraj deposed that on 29.11.2019, at around
11:00 AM to 12’Noon, he along with engineer Yusuf/PW-2 were
demarcating the site near Asita East Park, as employees of Walia
Construction Company. He deposed that residents of jhuggi had
gathered there. Then, some 4-5 persons asked them to show the
permission to work at the spot and then verbal altercation ensued.
Thereafter, he called his senior officials to intimate them that
some MLA has come to the spot. He further deposed that
someone from his back slapped him due to which he fell down
on the ground and then, they both ran to the office for their safety
and called contractor Walia/PW-3. After around 1 hour, PW-1
and PW-3 came to the spot and thereafter, they went to PS where
his statement was recorded. He further deposed that the persons
present at the spot were saying that the area MLA Nitin Tyagi
was present amongst them. However, he did not know him by
face.
Leading questions were put to the witness by the Ld. Addl.
PP for the State with the permission of the Court. He was duly
cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
17. PW-7 SI Inderveer Singh was the Investigating Officer
in the present case. He deposed that upon receiving information
about quarrel at Yamuna Khadar between Horticulture
department officials and the then MLA Nitin Tyagi, he reached at
the spot but by then, the quarrel had already ended. Thereafter, in
the evening, complaint Ex. PW1/A pertaining to this incident was
Page no 9 of 19
FIR No.415/2019 PS: Laxmi Nagar
State Vs. Nitin Tyagi
Digitally
signed by
NEHA NEHA
Date:
MITTAL
MITTAL 2026.07.21
15:28:19
+0530
marked to him. He got conducted medical examination of PW-2
and PW-6. He made endorsement Ex PW7/A on the complaint
and got registered the present FIR. He deposed that he prepared
site plan Ex. PW7/B, recorded the statements of victim u/s 161
CrPC, seized documents from the complainant vide seizure
memo Ex. PW1/G and bound down the accused vide
pabandinama Ex. PW7/C. He further deposed that he moved an
application u/s 195 CrPC to Chief Engineer, Horticulture
Department, DDA to provide sanction to which reply Ex. PW7/D
was received. He identified the accused correctly in the Court.
He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
18. Thereafter, PE was closed on 02.07.2026 and statement
of accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded.
Examination of accused u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973:
19. As mandated u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused was given
due opportunity to personally explain the circumstances
appearing against him in evidence in the matter at hand. All the
incriminating facts, circumstances and evidences were put to the
accused as appeared in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses
and the corresponding documents.
20. Accused Nitin Tyagi has stated in his statement u/s 313
Cr.P.C. that though he had visited the spot on the day of incident
but he was not involved in any of the offences as no quarrel had
Page no 10 of 19
FIR No.415/2019 PS: Laxmi Nagar
State Vs. Nitin Tyagi
Digitally
signed by
NEHA NEHA
Date:
MITTAL
MITTAL 2026.07.21
15:28:27
+0530
taken place in his presence. He stated that he reached at the spot
on seeing a lot of dust rising in the air. Since blanket ban on
construction by NGT was going on at that time, he asked the
persons present at the spot to show under what permission they
were doing the excavation work, upon which someone from the
crowd said that they have the requisite permission in their office.
He stated that in the meanwhile, he called the then SDM Sh.
Sanjeev Kumar who came at the spot and enquired about the
permission and rejected the documents shown to him by the
persons present there. Thereafter, the SDM asked them to stop
the work immediately. He stated that he also made three formal
complaints in this regard – to Delhi Pollution Control Board, to
the area DM and to the concerned police station. He further
stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case to save the
skin of DDA officials.
21. The accused opted to lead defence evidence. Accordingly,
matter was listed for defence evidence on 09.07.2026. However,
on that day, it was submitted that the accused does not wish to
lead defence evidence and hence, DE was closed and matter was
listed for final arguments.
Final Arguments:
22. Final arguments were advanced by Ld. Addl PP for the
State and Ld. Defence Counsel. The final arguments were heard
at length on behalf of both the parties.
Page no 11 of 19
FIR No.415/2019 PS: Laxmi Nagar
State Vs. Nitin Tyagi
Digitally signed
by NEHA
NEHA MITTAL
MITTAL Date:
2026.07.21
15:28:32 +0530
23. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that the
prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt as PW-1 has clearly identified the accused.
More so, the accused himself has not disputed his presence at the
spot. It has further been argued that PW-2 and PW-6 have
testified in corroboration to each other with respect to offences
punishable u/s 323/427/34 IPC. Hence, it is prayed that the
accused be convicted.
24. On the other hand, it has been argued by Ld. Counsel
for accused that as per the prosecution story, there are two
victims i.e. PW-2 and PW-6. However, as none of them are
admittedly government employees, no offence u/s 186/34 IPC is
made out against the accused. It has further been argued that
almost all the prosecution witnesses have failed to identify the
accused in the Court and hence, the case of the prosecution fails
on this count itself. It has further been argued that PW-1 and
PW-3 are hearsay witnesses and their testimonies cannot be
relied upon. Out of the two eye-witnesses, PW-2/Yusuf has not
supported the prosecution story. It has further been argued that
the prosecution is heavily relying upon torn map Ex. PW1/F.
However, the prosecution has failed to prove that the said
document was a government document.
25. Lapses in the investigation have also been highlighted
by Ld. Counsel for accused who has argued that the Investigating
Officer has failed to join any public witness despite the fact that a
Page no 12 of 19
FIR No.415/2019 PS: Laxmi Nagar
State Vs. Nitin Tyagi
Digitally signed
by NEHA
NEHA MITTAL
MITTAL Date:
2026.07.21
15:28:40 +0530
large number of residents of jhuggi had gathered at the spot. It
has further been argued that the present case is a politically
motivated case which was got registered at a time when majority
of the sitting MLAs were from the opposite party. With these
submissions, it is prayed that accused deserves to be acquitted.
Appreciation of Evidence:-
26. In the present case, notice has been framed against the
accused for the offences punishable u/s 186/323/427/34 IPC on
the allegations that he voluntarily obstructed the
complainant/PW-1, who is a public servant, in the discharge of
public function and also slapped PW-2 and PW-6 thereby
causing simple injury to PW-6 and torn the government papers
i.e. site plan Ex. PW1/F. The defence of the accused is that
though he was present on the spot on the day of incident, no
altercation took place in his presence. The accused has further
taken the defence that he has been falsely implicated in the
present case as he had questioned the workers of the contractor to
show the permission under which they were doing the excavation
work, despite the blanket ban on construction by NGT. It is clear
from the defence of the accused that he has not disputed his
presence at the spot on the day of incident but has only denied
the happening of events in his presence, as alleged by the
prosecution.
Liability of accused u/s 186 IPC:-
27. The essential ingredients to constitute the offence u/s
Page no 13 of 19
FIR No.415/2019 PS: Laxmi Nagar
State Vs. Nitin Tyagi
Digitally signed
by NEHA
NEHA MITTAL
MITTAL Date:
2026.07.21
15:28:45 +0530
186 IPC are as under:-
(a) There must be an obstruction.
(b) The obstruction must be by the accused.
(c) The obstruction must be voluntary.
(d) The obstruction must be of a public servant.
(e) The obstruction must in discharge of public
functions by the public servant.
28. To initiate prosecution under this section, it is
necessary that a complaint is filed u/s 195(1)(a) Cr.P.C. is filed
by the concerned public servant or his superior officer to whom
he is administratively subordinate. In the present case, the
prosecution has relied upon complaint Ex.PW-1/A which has
been filed by the complainant himself. Accordingly, the said
requirement stands complied with.
29. Perusal of the complaint Ex. PW1/A shows that it is
alleged therein that the accused threatened PW-1 to face
consequences, if any encroachers were removed from the
floodplains. However, in his testimony before the Court, PW-1
has deposed that when he reached on the site upon receiving a
call from one of his staff members regarding quarrel at the spot,
he asked the accused as to what he has done and that he should
have contacted him in case any clarifications were required with
respect to the work. This conversation between PW-1 and the
accused does not, by any stretch of imagination, amount to
Page no 14 of 19
FIR No.415/2019 PS: Laxmi Nagar
State Vs. Nitin Tyagi
Digitally
signed by
NEHA
NEHA MITTAL
MITTAL Date:
2026.07.21
15:28:52
+0530
obstruction in the discharge of public function by the concerned
public servant. No allegations of extension of threat against the
accused have been made by PW-1 in the Court.
30. PW-1 has further stated in his examination-in-chief that
the supporters of the accused threatened him by saying “ye bahut
bada engineer aaya hai, yahan koi kaam nahi hoga, koi jhuggi
nahi hategi, agar hatayi toh main dekh lunga”. With respect to
this portion of his testimony, PW-1 has stated in his cross-
examination that he does not remember if he had told about the
said fact to the police officials. Perusal of his complaint Ex.
PW1/A shows that no such fact has been mentioned therein.
Further, PW-3, who was allegedly threatened by the accused
along with PW-1, has denied the suggestion that the accused
threatened him or PW-1. The other witnesses who were also
present at the spot are PW-2 and PW-6. None of them have made
any whisper of any allegations against the accused with respect
to the offence punishable u/s 186 IPC. Hence, in view thereof,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has
failed to prove the commission of offence u/s 186 IPC.
Liability u/s 323 IPC:-
31. The accused has been charged u/s 323 IPC on the
allegations that he has beaten Yusuf Ali/PW-2 and
Sarfaraj/PW-6, thereby causing simple injury to PW-6. It is the
case of the prosecution that PW-1 and PW-3 reached at the spot
Page no 15 of 19
FIR No.415/2019 PS: Laxmi Nagar
State Vs. Nitin Tyagi
Digitally
signed by
NEHA NEHA MITTAL
Date:
MITTAL 2026.07.21
15:28:58
+0530
later on and were admittedly not present when the alleged
incident took place. Since PW-1 and PW-3 were not present at
the time when commission of offence punishable u/s 323/34 IPC
is alleged, their testimony to the effect that the accused was
present at the spot when they reached there, is irrelevant. Hence,
even as per the prosecution version, PW-2 and PW-6 are the only
eye-witnesses to prove this incident.
32. Perusal of testimony of PW-2 shows that he deposed
that physical altercation took place between him and the crowd,
however, his knowledge about the fact that accused was also a
part of the crowd is based on what he heard from the DDA
officials and hence, can easily be categorised as hearsay. Neither
these DDA officials have been named nor cited as a witness by
the prosecution. Had the witness identified the accused in the
court as one the persons present on the spot on the day of
incident, the prosecution case might have been successful. But he
even failed to identify the accused present in the Court.
33. Questions were put to PW-2 u/s 154 of the Indian
Evidence Act read with First proviso to Section 162(1) CrPC by
Ld. Addl. PP for the State with the permission of the Court.
During questioning, he clearly denied the suggestion that the
accused slapped him or his colleague PW-6. Thus, his testimony
is insufficient to establish the presence of the accused at the spot
at the time of incident in question.
Page no 16 of 19
FIR No.415/2019 PS: Laxmi Nagar
State Vs. Nitin Tyagi
Digitally
signed by
NEHA NEHA MITTAL
Date:
MITTAL 2026.07.21
15:29:06
+0530
34. PW-6 has deposed that someone from his back slapped
him. Thus, it is clear that he did not see the face of the person
who slapped him. Now, the question is whether constructive
liability u/s 34 IPC can be imposed upon the accused. To
establish criminal liability u/s 34 IPC, the prosecution is required
to prove that the accused was a part of the crowd from which one
of the persons slapped the witness. However, in the opinion of
this Court, the prosecution has failed to prove the same. PW-6
has stated in his testimony that the people who had come in the
car were saying that the area MLA Nitin Tyagi/accused is present
amongst them but he did not know who amongst them was the
accused. He even failed to identify the accused as the same
person who was present on the day of incident. Thus, his
testimony also fails to prove the presence of the accused at the
spot at the time of incident.
35. Hence, in view of the above discussion, the charge u/s
323/34 IPC against the accused fails.
Liability u/s 427 IPC:-
36. The accused has also been charged for the offence
punishable u/s 427 IPC on the allegations that he had torn the site
plan Ex. PW1/F after taking the same from the hands of PW-2
Yusuf. However, PW-2 has stated in his testimony before the
Court that he cannot tell whether the site map was torn by the
accused or not. He further denied the suggestion that the accused
tore the site plan.
Page no 17 of 19
FIR No.415/2019 PS: Laxmi Nagar
State Vs. Nitin Tyagi
Digitally signed
by NEHA
NEHA MITTAL
MITTAL Date:
2026.07.21
15:29:13 +0530
37. Similarly, PW-6 has clearly stated in his cross-
examination that he does not know if the site plan in the hand of
Yusuf was torn by the accused. Though he has stated in his
examination-in-chief, on a leading question being put to him, that
Yusuf had told him that the site plan was torn by the accused but
the same is irrelevant as Yusuf/PW-2 himself has denied
knowledge of the said fact.
38. In view the above discussion, it is concluded that the
prosecution has failed to prove the charge u/s 427/34 IPC against
the accused.
Conclusion:
39. Accordingly, this court is of the opinion that
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Hence, this Court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the
accused Nitin Tyagi and hold the accused not guilty of
commission of said offences. Accused Nitin Tyagi is acquitted
of the offences u/s 186/323/427/34 IPC.
40. Before parting with this judgment, this Court would
like to express its deprecation for the conduct of the Ld. Counsel
appearing for accused in the present matter. The legislature, in its
wisdom, has tried to incorporate all the possible safeguards for
protecting the witnesses from any kind of influence including
provisions discouraging adjournments for the cross-examination
Page no 18 of 19
FIR No.415/2019 PS: Laxmi Nagar
State Vs. Nitin Tyagi
Digitally
signed by
NEHA NEHA MITTAL
Date:
MITTAL 2026.07.21
15:29:20
+0530
of witnesses. Directions to this effect have been repeatedly
passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments, one of
them being ‘Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab, (2015)3 SCC
220′. Despite this, the witnesses remain vulnerable to influence
or threatening at the instance of the opposite party/accused. In the
present case, court question was put to PW-6 if he was called
outside the courtroom before the proceedings in the matter. The
answer of the witness is reproduced as under:-
“The witness pointed towards the clerk of the counsel
for accused and stated that he took him to the counsel
for accused outside court and the counsel asked him if
he had met Yusuf (PW-2). By this time, the matter was
called and I came inside the Courtroom.”
Though no such conversation probably took place between the
witness and the counsel which could be termed as ‘influence’ or
‘threat’ but the manner in which the witness was called outside
the courtroom at the behest of the counsel for accused is at the
least deplorable. Such conduct on the part of the Counsel, who is
also an officer of the Court, has shaken the conscience of this
Court. While exercising restraint, this Court ends the judgment
with the hope that such conduct will be taken care of by the
counsel for accused in future.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed
by NEHA
Announced in the open NEHA MITTAL
MITTAL Date:
Court on 21.07.2026 2026.07.21
15:29:26 +0530
( NEHA MITTAL )
ACJM-03/RADC
NEW DELHI
Page no 19 of 19
FIR No.415/2019 PS: Laxmi Nagar
State Vs. Nitin Tyagi
