Delhi District Court
State vs Amar Nath Etc on 7 February, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. DIVYA ARORA:
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-04: NORTH-WEST
DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No. 288/2009
PS Keshav Puram
State Vs. Amar Nath etc.
Date of Institution: 06.04.2011
Date of Judgment : 07.02.2025.
JUDGMENT
(a) Serial Number of the case : 528566/2016
(b) Date of commission of offence : 15.08.2009
(c) Name of the complainant : Yogesh Kumar
(d) Name of Accused persons, : (1) Amar Nath their parentage & residence S/o Sh. Bhim Singh.
(2) Veena W/o Amar Nath, (3) Amit S/o Amar Nath, (4) Chanchal W/o Amit all R/o: 556/37, Onkar Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi.
(e) Offence complained of : U/s 323/325/34 IPC (f) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty (g) Final order : Acquittal FIR No. 288/2009 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/34 IPC State Vs. Amar Nath etc. Page No. 1 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.02.07 18:22:02 +0530
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1) This judgment pertains to the trial of accused persons namely Amar Nath, Chanchal, Amit Kaushik, and Veena for offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly voluntarily causing simple and grievous hurt to the complainant, Yogesh, and his wife, Lalita. The prosecution's case is that on the day of the incident i.e. 15.08.2009, at 4.00 pm, at the roof of House No. 556-557/37, Onkar Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, inflicted simple hurt upon Lalita and grievous hurt upon the complainant, Yogesh. The matter was investigated, and a charge sheet was filed, accusing the accused persons for offences under Sections 323/325/34 IPC.
2) After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court, cognizance of the offence was taken and accused persons were summoned. After they entered appearance, copy of the chargesheet alongwith the documents was sup- plied to all the accused persons in compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3) Charge was then framed against the accused Amar Nath, Chanchal, Amit Kaushik and Veena on 23.08.2012 for the commission of offences under Section 323/325/34 IPC to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 288/2009 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/34 IPC State Vs. Amar Nath etc. Page No. 2 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.02.07 18:22:08 +0530 4) To prove its case, the prosecution examined 07 witnesses. 5) PW1 Yogesh has deposed that on 15.08.2009, at about 4.00
pm, accused Amar Nath alongwith other co-accused persons entered the house of PW-1 and asked PW-1 to withdraw the case pending in Tis Hazari Courts. It has been further alleged by PW-1 that on 30.04.2009, you accused Amar Nath threat- ened to kill PW-1 and his family if he does not withdraw the case. Further PW-1 has deposed that accused Amar Nath alongwith other accused persons hit him with stick, caught hold of the hands of wife of PW-1 and started hitting him with fists, sticks and blows. He further deposed that accused Amar Nath alongwith other accused persons threatened him that he will be implicated him in false cases as they are known to police officials. Thereafter, PW-1 has made a call at 100 number. Police officials came and went to the other side of the house which was in possession of accused persons and did not return for 30 minutes. PW-1 again made a call at 100 number and PCR van came which refused to allow them to sit in the van. Thereafter, PW-1 again made a call at 100 number. He sat in PCR Van and was taken to BJRM Hospital with his wife, and accused Veena was also sitting in the same PCR Van. Thereafter, medical examination was done and X- ray of PW-1's left hand was also done. On the same day, IO Peera Ram came to the house of PW-1 at about 11.00 pm, to record his statement, however, PW-1 requested him not to take any statement at that hour as he was not feeling well, FIR No. 288/2009 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/34 IPC State Vs. Amar Nath etc. Page No. 3 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.02.07 18:22:15 +0530 however, IO asked him to sign on blank paper saying "Mai in chaaro ko aisa fasaa dunga, aapka case majboot banaa dunga". PW-1 deposed that as he was feeling drowsy, he signed the blank pages as directed by the IO. On the next day, when he realized that IO had taken his signatures on blank paper, he filed a complaint to SHO PS Keshav Puram marked as Mark-A bearing his signature at point A, and a complaint before the Court was also filed exhibited as Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point A. Lastly, he de- posed that he moved an application under RTI Act asking for the reasons as to why chargesheet of present case was not prepared. Thereafter, chargesheet was filed. The statement of PW-1 is Ex.PW2/B bearing the signature of PW-1 at point A, and as per PW-1 the contents of his statement were written by IO Peera Ram himself. Lastly, upon cross examination by Ld. APP, PW-1 has stated that the incident in question took place as per the statement given by him in his chief examina- tion and not as mentioned in Ex.PW2/B.
6) PW2 Lalita has deposed that on 15.08.2009 at about 4.00 pm, accused Amar Nath alongwith other co-accused persons en- tered into the house of PW-2 with Dandas and threatened PW-1 and PW-2 by stating that "jo tune hamare khilaf civil suit dala hua hai, wo wapas lega ya nahi". PW-2 further de- posed that accused Amar Nath alongwith other accused per- sons gave beatings to PW-1 with Danda, leg and kick blows and when PW-2 went to save her husband, accused Amar FIR No. 288/2009 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/34 IPC State Vs. Amar Nath etc. Page No. 4 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.02.07 18:22:24 +0530 Nath alongwith co-accused persons started giving beatings to her as well with dandas. Accused Amar Nath alongwith other accused persons threatened them by stating that "police me hamare rishtedar hai, hum tumhe jhuthe case me fasaa denge" and then fled away from their house. PW-2 further deposed that PW-1 made a call at 100 number and after 10- 15 minutes, police officials came and after seeing their in- juries, they went to accused's house and did not return for 30 minutes, thereafter, PW-1 again made a call at 100 number and PCR van came which refused to allow them to sit in the van. One more call was made by PW-1 and then PCR van came and took PW-1, PW-2 and accused Veena to BJRM Hospital. Thereafter, PW-1 and PW-2 were medically exam- ined. PW-2 further deposed that on the day of incident, at around 11.00 pm, IO Peera came to their house and told them to give their statements. Since they were not in the condition to give statement, IO Peera Ram told them, "mai in chaaro ko fasaa dunga, aur tumhara case majboot banaa dunga", and took the signatures of PW-1 on a blank paper. It is further deposed by PW-2 that on the next day, PW-1 gave a com- plaint against IO Peera Ram to SHO. She further deposed that her statement u/s 161 Cr.PC was not recorded by the IO and prior to the incident, her husband was beaten by accused Amar Nath at Tis Hazari Courts.
7) PW-3 Dr. Shipra Rampal who was deputed by MRD In-char-
ge Dr. Seema, BJRM Hospital, has identified the signatures FIR No. 288/2009 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/34 IPC State Vs. Amar Nath etc. Page No. 5 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.02.07 18:22:38 +0530 of Dr. Naveen at X-ray Report Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B i.e. the X-ray report of victim Yogesh and Lalita respectively.
8) PW-4 ASI Ram Phool deposed that on 15.08.2009, he was posted at PS Keshav Puram and vide DD No. 21-PP, HC Peera Ram received an information about the quarrel and thereafter, PW-4 alongwith the IO went to house No. 556/37, Onkar Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi from where they took both the parties to BJRM Hospital. Thereafter, PW-4 alongwith IO went to BJRM Hospital. IO received ME of injured Amar Nath, Yogesh, Veena and Lalita, and doctor advised that these injured persons are fit for statement. Thereafter, IO recorded the statement of injured persons and IO kept the call vide DD no. 21-PP pending.
9) PW-5 HC Halwant deposed that on 04.10.2009, he was posted as constable at police post Shanti Nagar within PS Ke- shav Puram and on that day, he alongwith HC Peera Ram went to the house of accused Amar Nath located at 556/37, Onkar Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi where they met with accused persons namely Amar Nath, Amit and Veena. HC Peera Ram inquired from accused and accused persons were formally ar- rested and personally searched vide memos now Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW5/C, Ex.PW5/D, Ex.PW5/E and Ex.PW5/F, and accused persons were released. He identified the accused persons Amar Nath and Amit in the Court. Iden-
FIR No. 288/2009 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/34 IPC State Vs. Amar Nath etc. Page No. 6 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.02.07 18:22:49 +0530
tity of accused Veena was not disputed by the Ld. defence counsel.
10) PW-6 SI Peera Ram deposed that on 15.08.2009, he was posted at PP Shanti Nagar PS Keshav Puram as Head Consta- ble and on that day, he was doing day emergency duty and during emergency duty, he received DD No. 21-PP Ex.PW1/D3. Thereafter, he alongwith HC Ram Phool went to the house bearing no. 556/37, Onkar Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi and came to know that there was fight between two brothers namely Amar Nath and Yogesh Kumar, and also came to know that the injured person was taken to the hospi- tal through PCR vehicle. After that he visited the hospital and Amar Nath was admitted in the hospital and other three injured persons namely Yogesh, Lalita and Veena were dis- charged. He recorded the statement of Amar Nath and ob- tained MEs (Medical Examination Register) of injured per- sons and he went to the house bearing no. 556/37 and 557/37 Onkar Nagar, Tri Nagar for searching the other injured per- son where he met with injured person Yogesh, Lalita and fa- ther of Yogesh namely Bhim Singh. Thereafter, injured per- son Yogesh gave his statement which is Ex.PW2/B. There- after, he deposited the said MEs at BJRM Hospital for ob- taining opinion upon the same. Thereafter, he received result upon the said MEs as injury was simple with regard to in- jured namely Lalita, Amar Nath and Veena, and injury was grievous with regard to complainant Yogesh. Thereafter, he FIR No. 288/2009 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/34 IPC State Vs. Amar Nath etc. Page No. 7 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.02.07 18:22:54 +0530 prepared rukka on basis of statement of complainant Yogesh which is Ex.PW6/A, and handed over the same to DO for registration of FIR and got registered the present FIR. There- after, DD entry bearing no. 21-PP dated 02.10.2009 was recorded in respect of injured person Amar Nath and Veena. On 02.10.2009, he visited the house of Yogesh and prepared site plan at the instance of Yogesh which is Ex.PW6/B, and recorded the statement of complainant Yogesh and Lalita. On 04.10.2009, accused Amar Nath, Veena and Amit were interrogated, and thereafter, IO formally arrested and person- ally searched the accused Amar Nath, Veena and Amit vide memos Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B, Ex.PW5/C, Ex.PW5/D, Ex.PW5/E and Ex.PW5/F, and during inquiry from neigh- bours, it came to know that at the time of incident Chanchal was not present at the spot. Thereafter, he prepared the chargesheet and submitted the same before the Court. Iden- tity of accused persons was not disputed by the Ld. defence counsel.
11) PW Dr. Deepak deposed that he has been deputed by MS BJRM Hospital to depose on behalf of Dr. R.S. Mishra and Dr. Sunil as they have left the hospital. Dr. Deepak deposed that he is well conversant / acquaint with the handwriting and signatures of Dr. R.S. Mishra and Dr. Sunil. Dr. Deepak iden- tified the signatures of Dr. R.S Mishra and Dr. Sunil on the MLC bearing no. 64995 dated 15.08.2009 of injured Yogesh and MLC bearing no. 65011 dated 15.08.2009 of injured FIR No. 288/2009 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/34 IPC State Vs. Amar Nath etc. Page No. 8 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.02.07 18:23:01 +0530 Lalita at point A and B on both MLCs. The said MLCs are exhibited as Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B.
12) Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed and the statement of accused was recorded under Section 281 read with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to the ac- cused persons who maintained their innocence. Accused Amar nath stated that " We never entered in the house of Yo- gesh and Lalita and we did not cause any injury to them at the roof of their house. We have not committed any offence or that we have been falsely implicated in the present case by the IO at the instance of Yogesh and Lalita. My signatures were obtained on certain blank papers and later on the same were converted into memos and documents in order to create false evidence against me and my family members. At the time of alleged incident, my son Amit and daughter in law Chanchal were not present at the spot. It was quarreled by Yogesh, Lalita and their son G (CCL). They started quarrel- ing with me and my wife and caused injuries to us and in or- der to save themselves, they falsely lodged FIR against me and my family members. The contents of the FIR are false. I was called in the Police Station for inquiry and later on falsely implicated in the present case. The police reached at the spot as I made 100 number call regarding quarrel by the complainant Yogesh, Lalita and their son G (CCL). On the day of incident, at about 4.00 PM I was present on the roof of FIR No. 288/2009 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/34 IPC State Vs. Amar Nath etc. Page No. 9 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.02.07 18:23:08 +0530 my house. Yogesh, Lalia and G (CCL) came on the roof of my house and they started quarreling and abusing with me in filthy language and told me to vacate the house. Thereafter, accused persons started manhandling with me and Yogesh started punching on my chest and thereafter I started shouting and thereafter my wife Veena reached at the roof. They all started beating and abusive my wife. We did not cause any inquiry to any of the above persons. Yogesh sustained injury as his hand struck/hit on the wall when he was quarreling with me. He also extended threat to falsely implicate me in a false case. My son Amit was not present at the spot at the time of alleged incident and my daughter in law Chanchal was in her parental house and she came later on after the al- leged incident. I have been falsely implicated in the present case." Accused Veena deposed that "On the day of incidence, my husband was present on the roof of my house and I heard the noise of my husband for helping. Thereafter, I came at the roof and found that my husband was beaten by Yogesh, Lalia and G (CCL). I tried to help my husband and tried to save him but accused persons started manhandling with me. They all started beating me abused me. We did not cause any injury to any of the above persons. Yogesh sustained injury as his hand struck/hit on the wall when he was quarreling with me. He also extended threat to falsely implicate me in a false case. One case FIR No. 10/2002 u/s 420/468/471/120 B IPC P.S. Keshav Puram was pending against Yogesh, Lalita and their associates (relatives) which was registered on the FIR No. 288/2009 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/34 IPC State Vs. Amar Nath etc. Page No. 10 of 21 Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA DIVYA ARORA Date: 2025.02.07 18:23:14 +0530 complaint of my mother Ms. Kalawati and I was a witness in the said case. At the time of alleged incident some neighbor were present at the spot. My son Amit was not present at the spot at the time of alleged incident and my daughter in law Chanchal was in her parental house and she came later on af- ter the alleged incident. Some of the neighbor were present at the spot at the time of the alleged incident. I have been falsely implicated in the present case." Accused Amit de- posed that "On the day of alleged incident, I was present in- side my house i.e. ground floor and I heard the sound of my father and mother for helping them as they were present on the roof of our house. I visited at the roof of my house and my parents told me that Yogesh, Lalia and G (CCL) caused injuries to them . Thereafter, my father called police at 100 number and they were taken to the hospital. I was not present at the spot at the time of alleged incident. I did not cause any injury to the aforesaid persons. They also pushed my grand mother Ms. Kalawati. I have not committed any offence. Yo- gesh also extended threat to my father to falsely implicate him in a false case. One case FIR No. 10/2002 u/s 420/468/471/120 B IPC P.S. Keshav Puram was pending against Yogesh, Lalita and their associates (relatives) filed by my grand mother Ms Kalawati in which my father is witness. I have been falsely implicated in the present case. " Accused Chanchal deposed that "At the time of alleged incident, I was present at my parental house and later on my husband called me and apprised about the alleged incident. Thereafter, I vis-
FIR No. 288/2009 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/34 IPC State Vs. Amar Nath etc. Page No. 11 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.02.07 18:23:22 +0530
ited at my matrimonial house where I came to know that the aforesaid persons caused injury to my in laws. I did not cause any injury to the aforesaid persons. I have been falsely impli- cated in the present case." Accused persons have chosen to lead defence evidence.
13) DW-1 Sh. Suresh Chand and DW-2 Sh. Shiv Kumar were ex-
amined and they were duly cross examined by Ld. APP for the State.
14) Final arguments were then advanced on behalf of the State wherein it has been argued that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the accused be found guilty in the case. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for the accused has argued that sufficient material has not been brought on record to prove that the accused committed the present offence.
15) The arguments as advanced by both the parties have been carefully considered along with the evidence on record.
16) It is a settled proposition of law that in a criminal trial, it is for the State to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence and it is for the prosecution to ensure that its case is able to stand on its own legs. The prosecution cannot derive any benefit whatso- ever from the weakness of the defence of the accused if any.
FIR No. 288/2009 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/34 IPC State Vs. Amar Nath etc. Page No. 12 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.02.07 18:23:27 +0530
Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution version.
17) Ld counsel for accused argued that contradictions in the testi-
monies of prosecution witnesses rendered their statements unreliable. The failure to prove the MLCs weakened the pros- ecution' s case. It is further argued that absence of indepen- dent witnesses and the failure to cite PW1's father as a wit- ness indicated investigative lapses. Lastly, it is argued that the case was motivated by a property dispute, and the FIR was filed to pressurize the accused into a settlement.
Appraisal of Evidence:
18) PW1 Yogesh's statement in the FIR and the site plan indi-
cated that the incident occurred on the terrace. However, dur- ing his chief examination, he stated that the incident took place in the living room of his house. This significant dis- crepancy creates doubt regarding the actual location of the in- cident and undermines the prosecution's version.PW1 claimed that the IO recorded his statement on a blank signed paper and that the statement was fabricated, hence fair inves- tigation was never conducted. PW1 (the complainant) has stated that he filed multiple complaints before the SHO and the DCP against the Investigating Officer (IO), accusing the IO of bias and misconduct, particularly alleging that his state- ment was recorded on a blank signed paper. The absence of any immediate action or formal complaints at the time of the FIR No. 288/2009 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/34 IPC State Vs. Amar Nath etc. Page No. 13 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.02.07 18:23:33 +0530 incident further undermines the credibility of PW1's allega- tions. Consequently, the complaints against the IO should be treated with skepticism, and they do not provide sufficient grounds to support the complainant's version of events or the prosecution's case.
19) The MLC report indicates that PW1 was fit to give a state-
ment at the hospital. Despite this, he did not provide any ex- planation as to why he failed to give a proper statement to the IO at that time. This further weakens his credibility and does not support his allegation of IO changing his state- ment. PW1's testimony was vague and inconsistent regarding the injuries sustained. He failed to recall the exact parts of his body where he was injured and did not mention key injuries, such as bleeding from the nose or abdominal injuries, in his FIR or statements during the investigation. These omissions suggest that he may have exaggerated or improvised his ac- count during the trial.
20) PW1 did not file any protest petition or objection when the site plan in the charge sheet indicated the terrace as the place of occurrence rather than the living room. His failure to chal- lenge this discrepancy raises further questions about the ve- racity of his claims. In fact, no protest petition was filed if ac- cording to him the entire investigation was done in a biased manner. The testimony of PW1 is riddled with contradictions, FIR No. 288/2009 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/34 IPC State Vs. Amar Nath etc. Page No. 14 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.02.07 18:23:38 +0530 lacks consistency, and suffers from credibility issues. These factors collectively create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case and weaken the allegations against the ac- cused. Therefore, this court finds it unsafe to rely solely on the evidence of PW1 to sustain a conviction.
21) PW2 Lalita initially did not provide any substantive state-
ment during her first day of examination. Her subsequent tes- timony merely echoed the facts stated by PW1, without offer- ing any independent or corroborative evidence. Such delayed and repetitive testimony lacks spontaneity and raises doubts about its credibility. PW2 resiled from the statement recorded during the investigation under Section 161 Cr.PC. Her devia- tion from the initial version further weakens the prosecution's case and suggests a lack of reliability in her testimony.
22) As PW2 is the wife of the complainant (PW1), her testimony carries the risk of being influenced by the complainant's ver- sion. The prosecution failed to present any independent wit- ness to corroborate her claims, which diminishes the eviden- tiary value of her statement. In State of Haryana v. Gurdial Singh & Ors., AIR 1974 SC 1871, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"When a witness materially departs from their previous statements recorded during the investi- gation, such testimony becomes unreliable and unsafe to base a conviction unless corroborated FIR No. 288/2009 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/34 IPC State Vs. Amar Nath etc. Page No. 15 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.02.07 18:23:43 +0530 by other independent and credible evidence."
23) Given the inconsistencies, lack of independent corroboration, and deviation from previous statements, the testimony of PW2 is unreliable and insufficient to establish the prosecu- tion's case. It would be unjust to convict the accused based solely on such untrustworthy evidence.
24) PW1 claimed that his father was present on the ground floor during the incident and raised a hue and cry. However, the prosecution did not cite or produce PW1's father as a wit- ness. This omission is significant, as his testimony could have provided crucial independent evidence to corroborate the prosecution's version. Despite allegations of a noisy alter- cation and the involvement of multiple accused persons, no independent witness from the neighbourhood was examined by the prosecution. The absence of neutral testimony weak- ens the prosecution's case and casts doubt on the alleged inci- dent.
25) PW1's father was a crucial witness who could have corrobo-
rated the events described by the complainant. His non-exam- ination without any valid reason is a significant lapse on the part of the prosecution. The prosecution' s failure to produce key witnesses and the absence of any independent testimony raise serious doubts about the alleged incident' s occurrence.
FIR No. 288/2009 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/34 IPC State Vs. Amar Nath etc. Page No. 16 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.02.07 18:23:48 +0530 It suggests that either the incident did not happen as de- scribed or that the prosecution deliberately withheld wit- nesses who could have contradicted their version.
26) Ld counsel for accused argued that prosecution examined other doctors as PWs , but they could not adequately authen- ticate the injuries recorded in the MLCs as they did not pre- pare the MLCs and could not be cross examined on the as- pect of injuries. The failure of the doctors who prepared the MLCs to step into the witness box and the substitution of an- other doctor can be a ground to weaken the prosecution's case, but it may not automatically lead to acquittal unless it causes a fundamental prejudice to the defence or leads to un- reliable medical evidence.
27) The doctor who prepared the MLC is the best person to tes-
tify about the injuries, their nature, and the medical observa- tions made at the time of examination. Their absence from the witness box deprives the court of the opportunity to verify the authenticity and accuracy of the MLC. It is permissible for a doctor who is familiar with the handwriting and signa- tures of the original doctor to testify in court and prove the MLC under Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, such substitution must still establish a clear and credible link to the original medical examination. The failure to properly prove MLCs deprives the court of crucial evi-
FIR No. 288/2009 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/34 IPC State Vs. Amar Nath etc. Page No. 17 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.02.07 18:23:53 +0530
dence to establish the nature, extent, and cause of the alleged injuries. As a result, the medical evidence remains inconclu- sive.
28) The prosecution did not recover blood-stained clothes from the complainant, which could have served as corroborative evidence of injury. Additionally, no weapon, such as a stick or danda, was recovered from the accused persons, despite al- legations of grievous hurt. The absence of these physical evi- dentiary elements weakens the prosecution's case.
29) The defence examined DW1 and DW2, who testified that it was the complainant and his wife who initiated the alterca- tion. This evidence directly contradicts the prosecution's nar- rative.DW2 was initially cited by the prosecution but were later dropped as his statement under Section 161 Cr.PC did not support the prosecution' s case. The decision to drop ma- terial witnesses without a valid reason raises doubts about the fairness and completeness of the investigation. The testimony of defence witnesses cannot be disregarded merely because they were called by the defence. Courts must assess their credibility and weight in the same manner as prosecution wit- nesses.
FIR No. 288/2009 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/34 IPC State Vs. Amar Nath etc. Page No. 18 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.02.07 18:23:58 +0530
30) The absence of credible prosecution witnesses and the com-
pelling testimony of DW1 and DW2 weaken the prosecu- tion's case. DW1 and DW2 consistently maintained that the complainant and his wife initiated the altercation. Their testi- mony was not effectively challenged during cross-examina- tion, lending it further credibility. Even if they were known to accused persons, that in itself, will not discredit the entire tes- timony of witnesses.
31) In the present case, the complainant alleged that the investi-
gation conducted by the Investigating Officer (IO) was biased and fabricated. The specific allegations include that the IO recorded PW1's statement on a blank signed paper, the site plan was incorrectly marked at the terrace instead of the liv- ing room, and no proper investigation was conducted to re- cover weapons or blood-stained clothes. Despite these allega- tions, the prosecution was required to present reliable and credible evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. Even if the allegations of biased investigation are accepted, they do not automatically establish the guilt of the accused.
32) In Raja v. State of Karnataka, (2016) 10 SCC 506, The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere lapses or taint in the investigation cannot be the basis for conviction. The court must assess whether independent evidence on record con- vincingly establishes the guilt of the accused.
FIR No. 288/2009 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/34 IPC State Vs. Amar Nath etc. Page No. 19 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.02.07 18:24:05 +0530
33) In the present case, even if the complainant's allegations of biased investigation are accepted, the prosecution failed to in- dependently establish the guilt of the accused beyond reason- able doubt through credible evidence. Here, the complainant failed to corroborate his allegations with independent wit- nesses or concrete evidence, weakening the prosecution's case. As established by judicial precedents, mere defects in the investigation are not sufficient grounds for conviction in the absence of substantive evidence. Hence, the allegations of biased investigation, without corroborative proof, support an acquittal.
34) In this case, the relationship between the complainant (PW1) and accused Amar Nath, who are brothers, is a crucial factor. It is alleged that there is a history of pending litigations be- tween them concerning property disputes, and both parties have filed multiple cases against each other. This history cre- ates the possibility that the present case may have been filed as a strategic move to exert pressure on the other party and facilitate a settlement of the ongoing property matters.
35) In view of the contradictions, lack of credible evidence, and the failure of the prosecution to prove its case beyond a rea- sonable doubt, this court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons under Sections 323/325/34 IPC.
FIR No. 288/2009 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/34 IPC State Vs. Amar Nath etc. Page No. 20 of 21 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.02.07 18:24:20 +0530 Decision
36) In view of the above findings, the accused persons namely (1) Amar Nath S/o Bhim Singh, (2) Chanchal W/o Sh. Amit Kaushik, (3) Amit Kaushik S/o Amar Nath, and (4) Veena W/o Amar Nath are hereby acquitted from all charges under Sections 323/325/34 IPC in FIR No. 288/2009 PS Keshav Puram.
37) Accused persons are directed to furnish bail bond / surety bond for Rs. 10,000/- each under section 437-A of Code of Criminal Procedure and is directed to be present before the Ld. Appellate Court as and when notice is served upon him.
38) File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 07.02.2025.
DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA ARORA ARORA Date: 2025.02.07 18:24:27 +0530 (DIVYA ARORA) Judicial Magistrate First Class-04/North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 21 pages and each page bears my signature.
DIVYA Digitally signed by
DIVYA ARORA
ARORA Date: 2025.02.07
18:24:35 +0530
(DIVYA ARORA)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-04/North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi FIR No. 288/2009 (PS Keshav Puram) U/s 323/325/34 IPC State Vs. Amar Nath etc. Page No. 21 of 21