Delhi District Court
State vs Dinesh Chakraborty on 25 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF RISHABH KAPOOR, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS -05 SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Dinesh Chakraborty RISHABH
KAPOOR
Digitally signed
FIR No : 355/2011
by RISHABH
KAPOOR
Date: 2025.07.25
14:33:09 +0530
U/s : 323/452/506/34 IPC
P.S. : Vikas Puri
JUDGMENT:
1. Criminal Case No. : 9856/2019 2. Date of commission of offence : 11.03.2011 3. Date of institution of the case : 21.05.2012 4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name and parentage of accused :1.Dinesh Chakraborty s/o Sh. Shankar Lal Chakraborty (since dead and proceedings abated on 22.05.2023)
2. Raj Chakraborty w/o late Dinesh Chakraborty
3. Rahul Chakraborty s/o Late Dinesh Chakraborty
6. Offense complained or proved : U/s 323/452/506/34 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved: 27.06.2025
9. Final order : Acquitted
10. Date of final order : 25.07.2025 State Vs: Dinesh Chakraborty FIR No: 355/2011 U/s: 323/452/506/34 IPC P.S.Vikas Puri 1
1. The accused persons namely, Raj Chakraborty and Rahul Chakraborty are facing trial for offences u/s 323/452/506/34 IPC. The genesis of prosecution story is that on 11.03.2011, the ac- cused persons who were living at the house of complainant at H- 53, Vikas Puri, Delhi as tenants, asked the father of complainant to switch on the water motor and after the said motor was switched on, its fuse got tripped and the motor got stopped. The accused persons got agitated due to the said reason and at around 10:30 AM, they barged into the house of complainant Anish Chib at the ground floor of the aforesaid premises. The accused persons along with co-accused Dinesh Chakraborty (since dead) after al- legedly trespassing into the house of complainant entered into an altercation with the complainant and his family members and dur- ing the course of such altercation, the father of complainant and the complainant were assaulted by the accused persons. Al- legedly, the accused Rahul also assaulted the complainant with a stick due to which he sustained injuries on his head as the ac- cused persons also extended threats against the life of com- plainant and his family members. The matter was reported by the complainant to the police but due to inaction of the police to regis- ter the FIR, the complainant approached the Court vide an applica- tion u/s 156(3) Cr. PC and pursuant to order dated 12.10.2011, passed by the court of Sh. Hemraj the then Ld MM, the present case FIR came to be registered against the accused persons and the investigation in to the same began. During the course of inves- tigation, the accused persons were arrested and were admitted to police bail. The statements of witnesses were recorded and the State Vs: Dinesh Chakraborty FIR No: 355/2011 U/s: 323/452/506/34 IPC P.S.Vikas Puri 2 MLC of complainant was also obtained. After completion of inves- tigation, the present charge sheet for conducting trial of accused persons for offences u/s 323/451/506/34 IPC was submitted in the Court.
2. Thereafter, the cognizance of the offences was taken by the Ld. Predecessor Court and on the basis of material available on record, charges were framed against the accused persons for of- fences under Section 323/452/506/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was led and during the course of the present case proceedings, the accused Dinesh Chakraborty unfortunately died and the pro- ceedings against him stood abated on 20.05.2023. The matter proceeded further for trial of the remaining accused persons.
3. In order to establish guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined five witnesses in all. Pertinently, during the course of proceedings of the present case, it also transpired that the complainant Anish Chib has unfortunately died due to which his name of also dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 16.04.2018.
4. The proceedings u/s 294 Cr. PC were also conducted wherein the accused persons admitted certain formal documents in the nature of FIR and MLC of complainant Anish which are Ex. AD1 and Ex. AD2 respectively and in pursuance thereof, the examination of the formal witnesses with respect to said documents was dispensed with.
State Vs: Dinesh Chakraborty FIR No: 355/2011 U/s: 323/452/506/34 IPC P.S.Vikas Puri 3
5. Prior to delving into the merits of the contentions advanced on behalf of parties, let us briefly discuss the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses.
PW-1 Vijay Chib is the father of complainant. He deposed that accused Dinesh Kumar (since dead) was residing as a tenant at the first floor of his house and he had not paid rent for 15 months. He further deposed that the accused and his family also did not va- cate the house due to which he had filed a civil suit for eviction and on 11.03.2011 at 11:30 AM, the MCB of the electricity got tripped off due to some fault and the water motor could not be started. He further deposed that the accused persons asked him for starting the water motor and thereafter, accused Dinesh and Rahul came to the ground floor in a tempered mood and entered into the house without permission. He further deposed that after some time, ac- cused Raj also entered inside his house and all the accused per- sons started abusing him and his family members. He further de- posed that accused Dinesh ( since dead) pushed his younger son Ashu Chib and his wife Roopa Chib. He further deposed that the accused persons also pushed his two years old grandson Lucky Chib while they were searching for Anish Chib. He further deposed that when his son Anish Chib came from the outside, accused Di- nesh and Raj caught hold of him and accused Rahul who was hav- ing a wooden rod banged the same on the head of Anish Chib due to which the blood started oozing out from his head. He further de- posed that accused persons also threatened to kill them and used force upon him and his family members. He further deposed that his son Anish Chib was taken to DDU Hospital by the police where he was medically examined. He further deposed that the argu- ments used to take place between him and accused persons due State Vs: Dinesh Chakraborty FIR No: 355/2011 U/s: 323/452/506/34 IPC P.S.Vikas Puri 4 to rent related disputes. During his cross-examination, he stated that there is only one main gate in his house which provides the entry way. He further deposed that the wooden door of the gate was not bolted from inside when the incident took place. He denied that the altercation had taken place in the verandah of his house. He stated that during the entire incident, all the accused persons were present in the verandah. He further stated that he, his son and daughter-in-law rushed to the spot at the time of incident. He further stated of having not mentioned to the police that his grand- son was also pushed by the accused persons. He stated that only he and his son Anish Chib were present at the time of incident. He volunteered that when the fight continued his younger son Ashu Chib and his wife reached the spot. He stated that the civil pro- ceedings for recovery of possession and mesne profit were also initiated by him against the accused persons in year 2011 but they were not appearing before the court concerned. He further stated that the incident continued for 15 minutes and the neighbors of the locality had also gathered on the road in front of his house. He stated that his relationship with the neighbors was cordial at the time of the incident. He further stated that the accused Rahul was not carrying the wooden stick when he reached his house. He vol- unteered that the wooden stick was picked by the accused from the verandah of the ground floor of the premises. He further stated that the PCR call was made by him from his own mobile phone. He stated that his son got stitches due to the injuries and that said fact was informed to the IO but IO did not ask for medical documents regarding the stitches of the complainant. He stated of having pointed to the police regarding the presence of wooden stick at the spot. He stated that the accused persons were also taken to the hospital by the police officials but he could not state about the rea-
State Vs: Dinesh Chakraborty FIR No: 355/2011 U/s: 323/452/506/34 IPC P.S.Vikas Puri 5 sons due to which the accused persons were taken to hospital. He admitted that the proceedings u/s 107/151 Cr. PC were initiated by the police against the complainant and accused persons and the said kalandara proceedings started after about a month of date of incident. He denied that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case.
PW-2 Anurag Chand deposed that on 11.03.2011 at about 9 to 10:30 AM while he was talking to his friend i.e brother of com- plainant namely Ashu Chib, his tenant came down stairs and there arose a hot exchange of words between them regarding some wa- ter/electricity issue. He further deposed that when he along with Ashu Chib went down stairs to the ground floor, he saw that the el- der brother of Ashu Chib namely, Anish Chib got injured with the heavy stick in a quarrel which took place between the accused persons, Anish Chib and his family. During his cross-examination, he stated that at the time of incident only elder brother of Ashu Chib namely, Anish Chib was present at the spot and no other per- son except him and the accused persons were present at the spot. He stated that he did not see the accused persons using any weapon against the complainant and that by the time he reached at the spot, complainant was already injured. He stated that the complainant was bleeding from the frontal part of his head but he did not offer any handkerchief to him as same was already given by the brother of complainant. He stated that certain neighbors from the vicinity also gathered at the spot at the time of incident and he did not make police call as same was already made by someone else. He stated that the incident continued for about 15 to 20 minutes. He denied that the incident did not take place in his State Vs: Dinesh Chakraborty FIR No: 355/2011 U/s: 323/452/506/34 IPC P.S.Vikas Puri 6 presence or that he has deposed falsely at the behest of com- plainant who is his good friend.
PW-3 Ashu Chib is the brother of complainant and he deposed that on 11.03.2011 while he was present at his house, the accused persons who were staying at the first floor as tenants had entered into heated arguments with his brother Anish Chib and after some time, the accused persons forcibly entered into his house with rod/danda. He further deposed that accused Dinesh and his wife caught hold of his brother from behind and accused Rahul hit danda on the head of his brother due to which blood started oozing out from the head of his brother. He further deposed that after the call was made to police, police arrived at the spot and took his brother to DDU Hospital.
PW-4 Inspector Rajiv Gulati was the IO in the present case and he explained about the proceedings of the investigation which were conducted by him. He deposed that on 12.10.2011 in compli- ance to directions issued by the Court, he registered the present FIR and initiated the investigation. He further deposed that on that day, he along with Ct. Achey Lal went to the spot and met the com- plainant. He further deposed that he prepared site plan Ex. PW 4/A at the instance of complainant, recorded statement of witnesses Vijay Chib and Anish Chib and arrested accused Dinesh vide ar- rest memo Ex. PW 4/B pursuant to which his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW 4/C. He further deposed that on 22.10.2011, he recorded statements of witnesses Anurag, Ashu and Roopa and on 15.10.2011, he collected MLC of injured Anish Chib from SEM Court. He further deposed that on 01.12.2011, he arrested accused Raj Chakraborty and Rahul Chakraborty vide ar- rest memos Ex. PW 4/D and Ex. PW /E respectively. He further State Vs: Dinesh Chakraborty FIR No: 355/2011 U/s: 323/452/506/34 IPC P.S.Vikas Puri 7 deposed that the accused persons were released on police bail and he also recorded statement of constable Achey Lal. He further deposed that thereafter he got transferred from PS Vikas Puri.
PW-5 Inspector Shyoram deposed that on 02.05.2012, the case file was marked to him for remaining investigation and during the course of investigation conducted by him, he complied with the ob- jections and filed the charge sheet.
6. After the completion of prosecution evidence, PE was closed and statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr. PC were recorded wherein the accused persons alleged false implication and claimed innocence. Accused persons also opted not to lead defence evi- dence.
7. During the course of arguments, Ld. APP has argued that the prosecution witness have supported the prosecution case and their testimonies have remained unrebutted. It has further been argued that on combined reading of testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses, offences u/s 323/452/506/34 IPC have been proved beyond doubt.
8. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused persons has argued that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused persons and that the accused persons have been falsely implicated by the police officials at the behest of complainant. Arguing further, Ld. Counsel for accused persons has inter-alia submitted that alleged eye witness Vijay Chib has made certain considerable improvements in his version before the Court. It is further argued that due to lacunae and incoherency in the story of State Vs: Dinesh Chakraborty FIR No: 355/2011 U/s: 323/452/506/34 IPC P.S.Vikas Puri 8 the prosecution, accused persons be given benefit of doubt and are therefore entitled to be acquitted.
9. I have heard submissions of Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defense Counsel and have gone through the case record carefully.
10. I have also bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by both the parties. Accused persons have been indicted for the offences u/s 323/452/506/34 IPC.
11. For the sake of repetition, it is again reiterated that the sum and substance of the allegations as levelled against accused persons is that on 11.03.2011 at about 10:30 AM accused Raj and Rahul along with their co-accused Dinesh (since dead) in furtherance of common intention of each other, wrongfully trespassed into the house of complainant at House no. 53 Ground Floor Vikas Puri, Delhi after having made preparation to cause hurt to the complainant and thereby committed offence u/s 452/34 IPC. The allegations are also to the extent that on the given date, time and place, the accused persons along with their co-accused Dinesh (since dead) gave beatings to the complainant Anish Chib thereby causing simple injuries to him and have committed offence u/s 323/34 IPC. The allegations are also to the extent that both the accused persons along with their co-accused Dinesh (since dead) in furtherance of common intention with each other also criminally intimidated the complainant with the threats against the life of complainant and his family members thereby constituting offence u/s 506/34 IPC.
12. The careful perusal of the case record would reflect that the State Vs: Dinesh Chakraborty FIR No: 355/2011 U/s: 323/452/506/34 IPC P.S.Vikas Puri 9 complainant Anish Chib could not be examined as a witness in the present case as prior to his examination, he unfortunately passed away, due to which his name was struck off from the list of witnesses vide order dated 16.04.2018. In order to establish the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution is primarily relying upon the testimonies of three witnesses i.e. PW-1 Vijay Chib, PW- 2 Anurag Chand and PW-3 Ashu Chib. PW 1 Vijay Chib is the father of complainant and the alleged eye witness to the incident. The careful perusal of the record of the case would reflect that the present case FIR came to be registered pursuant to the directions dated 12.10.2011 passed in the application u/s 156 (3) Cr. PC filed on behalf of complainant Anish Chib (since dead) and in the said application as well as complaint u/s 200 Cr PC filed on behalf of complainant, the allegations were leveled against accused persons that the accused persons have forcibly entered into the house of complainant, abused him and his parents and have also inflicted a blow upon the complainant with the danda and have also threatened to kill the complainant. Interestingly, the said allegations were reproduced in the FIR as well as the charge-sheet filed in the present case and there is nothing in the said allegations that the two years old grandson of PW-1 was also pushed/assaulted by the accused persons during the incident. However, during the course of his deposition, PW-1 has for the first time stated that during the alleged incident, his two years old grandson was also pushed and assaulted by the accused persons.
13. The further perusal of the testimony of PW-1 would also reflect that after the alleged incident, PW-3 Ashu Chib along with his wife also reached the spot. The wife of PW-3 namely, Smt. Roopa Chib was not examined as a witness in the present case as State Vs: Dinesh Chakraborty FIR No: 355/2011 U/s: 323/452/506/34 IPC P.S.Vikas Puri 10 her name was also deleted from the list of witnesses on 04.09.2019 pursuant to the statement of Ld. APP for the state that the prosecution was not desirous in examining the afore-named witness as her testimony was repetitive in nature. Further, on careful scrutiny of testimony of PW-1 it also divulged that the relationship between the family of complainant and the accused persons was not cordial and rather there was a prevailing animosity between the parties due to the reason that the accused persons were not allegedly vacating the house of the complainant despite termination of their tenancy and they were even not paying the rent to the complainant constraining the complainant even to file a suit for possession against them. On perusal of testimony of PW-1, it further reveals that the incident had continued for a time span of around 15 to 20 minutes and during such time, various persons from the neighborhood also gathered at the spot. The further scrutiny of record would reflect that except PW-2 Anurag Chand, no other independent public persons or any persons from the neighborhood were associated as witnesses during the investigation nor were examined during the trial. On careful reading of testimony of PW-2 it also emerges that at the time when the incident took place, he was not present at the spot and rather he along with PW 3 rushed down stairs to the spot only after acquiring knowledge qua the incident. PW-2 has conceded to the fact that he was the friend of PW-3 since last ten years from the date of incident and had come to meet PW-3 at his house on the date of incident. PW-2 has also admitted the fact that he had not seen any of the accused persons attacking the complainant and by the time he reached the spot along with PW-3, the complainant had suffered injuries on his head. Even though, PW-3 during his deposition has stated that the alleged incident was witnessed by State Vs: Dinesh Chakraborty FIR No: 355/2011 U/s: 323/452/506/34 IPC P.S.Vikas Puri 11 him but the said version of PW-3 appears to be false as he has not detailed anything in his testimony supporting the fact that the incident had taken place in his presence and rather on careful scrutiny of testimony of PW-3 and reading the same with the testimony of PW-2, the inevitable conclusion which arises is that both the PW-2 and PW-3 were not present at the time of alleged incident and rather they have reached the spot only after the incident has taken place and this fact has also been corroborated by PW-1 in his deposition wherein he has stated that at the time of incident only he and the complainant were present at the spot.
14. It is an admitted fact that the alleged danda/rod which was used in the commision of offence was never recovered from the possession of or that the instance of accused persons. PW-1 has stated that the danda / rod was not brought by the accused persons when they entered into his house and rather same was picked by accused Rahul from the verandah of the house of the complainant. Further, it is not the case of prosecution that after the incident the said danda/rod was taken away or concealed by the accused persons so as to prevent its recovery. The testimonies of both the IOs (i.e. PW-4 and PW-5) are completely silent regarding the efforts made by them during investigation for affecting the recovery of the said rod/danda. Besides, PW-1 has also failed to explain about the reasons and circumstances under which he did not hand over the said rod/danda to the IO during investigation when same was admittedly left by accused persons in the verandah of the house after the incident. These loop holes in the prosecution case have remained unexplained, due to which the benefit of doubt deserves to be given to the accused persons. It is pertinent to mention that the defense of accused persons revolves State Vs: Dinesh Chakraborty FIR No: 355/2011 U/s: 323/452/506/34 IPC P.S.Vikas Puri 12 around the fact that the complainant did not sustain injuries due to the voluntary and intentional acts of assault upon him by the accused persons and rather the complainant himself started assaulting the accused persons and in order to prevent them, the accused persons resisted the acts of the complainant, thereby leading to the injuries on the person of complainant. It has been admitted by PW-1 that after the incident, the police took the complainant as well as the accused persons to DDU Hospital but he could not state about the reasons for taking the accused persons to the hospital by the police. The only perceivable reason with police for taking the accused persons to the hospital along with the complainant, was that the accused persons also might have sustained injuries during incident. Herein, it is pertinent to mention that the relationship between the parties was bitter to such an extent that the parties were having the history of disputes and litigation and this fact can even be ascertained from the fact that after the incident, the police instead of registering the FIR in the matter, opted to take the preventive action to avoid recurrence of the similar incident and disturbance of public peace by making kalandara u/s 107/151 Cr.PC against the complainant and the accused persons.
15. Admittedly, there were public persons including the persons dwelling in the neighborhood at the spot when the incident took place but they were never associated as witnesses during the investigation of the case. This court is well conscious of the fact that in each and every case no undue emphasis should be given to the fact that the public witnesses were not examined by the prosecuting agency but in the cases like the one in hand, given the fact that the parties were having disputes relating to the rent and State Vs: Dinesh Chakraborty FIR No: 355/2011 U/s: 323/452/506/34 IPC P.S.Vikas Puri 13 possession of the premises and also considering the fact that their relationship was bitter to such an extent that a civil litigation was also pending between them, there arises a requirement of seeking the corroboration of the version of PW-1 qua the occurrence of incident and complicity of accused persons in the same so as to rule out chances of false implication of accused persons in the present case. However, no such corroboration from any independent evidences has been given to the testimony of PW-1. The testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 appears to be hearsay in nature as they both have stated to have reached the spot only after the occurrence of the incident. Besides, both PW-2 and PW-3 also appears to be the brother and friend respectively, of the complainant, thus they are naturally interested in the success of the prosecution story, therefore, their testimonies cannot be considered as independent corroborating evidences by any stretch of the imagination. Further, there also arises material improvements and contradictions in the testimony of PW-1, which have also remained unexplained due to which the testimony of PW-1 cannot be completely relied upon without its corroboration in the material particulars with some independent evidences. This Court is well cognizant of the fact that the minor contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses which does not go to the root of the case deserves to be ignored but conversely, the material contradictions and omissions in the testimony of witnesses which goes to and attacks the very roots of the case cannot be ignored. It is also a settled canon of criminal jurisprudence that if two reasonably probable and evenly balanced views of the evidence are possible, one must necessarily concede to the existence of a reasonable doubt.
State Vs: Dinesh Chakraborty FIR No: 355/2011 U/s: 323/452/506/34 IPC P.S.Vikas Puri 14
16. The aforementioned lacunae in the story of the prosecution render the version of the prosecution doubtful, leading to an irresistible conclusion that the burden of proving the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts has not been discharged by the prosecution. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring on record any cogent evidence in order to prove the commission and guilt of the accused persons for offences u/s 323/452/506/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubts, thus, entitling the accused persons to benefit of doubt and acquittal.
17. Accordingly, this Court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the accused persons for the offences u/s 323/452/506/34 IPC and holds the accused persons not guilty for the alleged offences. The accused persons namely, Raj Chakraborty and Rahul Chakraborty are thus, acquitted of the offences u/s 323/452/506/34 IPC.
Announced in open Court on 25.07.2025.
(Rishabh Kapoor) JMFC-05 South West District Dwarka Courts, Delhi 25.07.2025 State Vs: Dinesh Chakraborty FIR No: 355/2011 U/s: 323/452/506/34 IPC P.S.Vikas Puri 15