Delhi District Court
State vs Gautam Johar on 3 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHASHANK NANDAN BHATT
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-02,
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS
State
Through Station House Officer,
PS Rajouri Garden
Case arising out of FIR No 238/22
PS Rajouri Garden .....State
VERSUS
1. Gautam Johar S/o Sh. Atul Johar
R/o A-4/183 Paschim Vihar New Delhi
2. Arjun Dev Makhija S/o Sh. Fateh Chand
R/o 69/7 Ashok Nagar Tilak Nagar Delhi
......Accused persons
a) CNR No. : DLWT020255202022
b) Sl. No. of the Case : 11342/22
c) Name of the complainant : Amit Chawla S/o Sh. Raj Pal
R/o WZ-106/72 Rajouri Garden
New Delhi
d) Name & address of accused persons: 1. Gautam Johar S/o Sh. Atul Johar
R/o A-4/183 Paschim Vihar New Delhi
2. Arjun Dev Makhija S/o Sh. Fateh
Chand R/o 69/7 Ashok Nagar Tilak
FIR No. 238/22
PS Rajouri Garden
State Vs. Gautam Johar & Anr. Page 1 of 15
Digitally signed by
SHASHANK SHASHANK
NANDAN NANDAN BHATT
Date: 2025.05.03
BHATT 17:01:56 +0530
Nagar Delhi
e) Date of Commission of : 08.02.2022
offence
f) Offence complained off : 324/34 IPC .
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
h) Final Order : Acquitted.
i) Date of such order : 03.05.2025.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 03.05.2025)
1. The instant matter has originated out of FIR No.238/2022 PS Rajouri Garden, as per which the accused persons are facing trial for the offences u/s 324/34 IPC .
2. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that on 08.02.2022, at about 08:00 pm, the complainant, who was a friend of accused Gautam Johar and had several financial dealings with him, called accused Gautam Johar at his home for a party as accused Gautam Johar had his birthday on 07.02.2022. Accused Gautam Johar came outside the house of the complainant in a white Santro Car and was accompanied by co-accused Arjun Makhija, the complainant had consumed some alcohol prior to meeting the accused persons and he sat inside the car of accused Gautam Johar, after which Gautam Johar started demanding money from him (which the complainant owed to him). At the same time, accused Arjun Makhija remarked that the complainant must be taught a lesson and upon hearing this, accused Gautam Johar took out a knife from the dashboard of his car and tried to stab the complainant. The FIR No. 238/22 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Gautam Johar & Anr. Page 2 of 15 Digitally signed SHASHANK by SHASHANK NANDAN NANDAN BHATT BHATT Date: 2025.05.03 17:02:05 +0530 complainant tried to stop accused Gautam Johar and in his attempt to stab the complainant, accused Gautam Johar inflicted an injury on the left hand and the stomach of the complainant. An FIR pertaining to the alleged incident was registered after a few hours and after registration of the FIR, the IO prepared the site plan, collected the MLC of the accused, sent notices u/s 41A Cr.P.C to the accused persons, prepared the interrogation report, seizure memorandums, recorded the statement of the witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C and after completion of investigation, filed the present charge sheet against the accused persons u/s 324/34 IPC.
3. After the charge sheet was filed, on finding sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused persons, the Ld. Predecessor Judge took cognizance of the alleged offences u/s 324/34 IPC against the accused persons. Thereafter, charge u/s 324/34 IPC were framed framed against the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. In support of its case, prosecution produced five witnesses- Amit Chawla (PW-
1), Ct. Ravi (PW-2), HC Dinesh (PW-3), ASI Krishan Kumar (PW-4) and ASI Krishan Kumar (PW-5). During the course of the present trial, the accused persons admitted the genuineness of MLCs of the victim (Ex. PW-1/B, Ex. A-4), endorsement on rukka (Ex. A-2), Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act (Ex.A-3) and the FSL Report (Ex. A-5), as a result of which the following witnesses:- DO/ASI Ram Phool, Dr Jitendra and Dr. Shubham Sharma (of the main charge-sheet) and Dr. Naresh Kumar and HC Pardeep Kumar (of the supplementary charge-sheet) were dropped.
5. Complainant Amit Chawla (PW-1) deposed that on 08.02.2022, at about 08:00- 09:00 pm, he had called accused Gautam Johar to his place for celebrating his (Gautam Johar's) birthday which was on 07.02.2022. He revealed that accused Gautam Johar came to his place in his Santro car bearing No. 9975, with co-accused FIR No. 238/22 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Gautam Johar & Anr. Page 3 of 15 Digitally signed by SHASHANK SHASHANK NANDAN BHATT NANDAN Date:
BHATT 2025.05.03
17:02:12
+0530
Ajay Makhija and he sat alongwith them in the Santro car. He added that after a few drinks, accused Gautam Johar said that they should settle their outstanding monetary transactions and when he said that the same should be discussed the next day, accused Gautam Johar got infuriated, took out the knife from the dashboard of his car, and tried to stab him. The witness added that during the incident, he caught hold of the knife but Gautam Johar pulled it out of his hand and stabbed him in his stomach, which resulted in little bleeding from his hand and stomach. He also stated that he got three stitches on his stomach as a result of the incident. He further added that Gautam Johar pushed him out of his car and ran away. He also stated that although he does not remember clearly, but during the stabbing accused Arjun had questioned accused Gautam Johar as to why he did so.
6. The witness further deposed that he made a call on emergency No.112, after which three PCRs reached the spot and took him to DDU Hospital. He stated that IO recorded his statement (Ex. PW-1/A) and he was provided medical treatment as per medical slip (Ex. PW-1/B). The witness correctly identified the accused persons and the photographs of white Santro car (Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2). The witness was thoroughly cross-examined by Ld. counsels for the accused persons. During his cross-examination, the witness categorically stated that the name of accused Gautam Johar was added in the FIR only because he was present in the car at the time of alleged incident. He admitted that he had financial transactions with accused Gautam Johar. He was further questioned about the details of the incident by the Ld. counsel for the accused persons and he largely remained firm in his version qua accused Gautam Johar inflicting the alleged injuries on his body.
7. In his cross-examination dated 02.06.2021, PW Amit Chawla (PW-1) admitted that he was suspended from his job in Income Tax Tribunal and he remained in custody for a period of three months in connection with the said matter. He admitted FIR No. 238/22 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Gautam Johar & Anr. Page 4 of 15 Digitally signed SHASHANK by SHASHANK NANDAN NANDAN BHATT BHATT Date: 2025.05.03 17:02:19 +0530 that on the day of the alleged incident, he had consumed two drinks with his friend, prior to meeting accused Gautam Johar. Contrary to his previous version, he stated that he had come to Rajouri Garden from Vikaspuri with accused Gautam Johar. He added that accused Gautam Johar does not drink whisky on Tuesdays (he usually drinks beer) and he does not remember if 08.02.2022 was Tuesday. He also stated that after the incident the guard of the society had helped him and he had informed the police about the same, but the police did not make any enquiry from him in his presence. The witness was confronted with the whatsapp chats between him and the accused Gautam Johar (Ex. PW-1/DX1(colly)) to which he stated that only few messages out of the said chats had been sent by him, however, the witness admitted that he had sent the message regarding the school fees of his daughter to accused Gautam Johar in April 2022. He added that he had informed the police that he had sustained injuries on his stomach and hand, and was confronted with DD No. 137A wherein he had only stated that he had injury on his hand. He denied the suggestion that he had falsely implicated accused Gautam Johar on account of monetary disputes.
8. Ct. Ravi (PW-2) deposed that on 08.02.2022, he was posted as a constable at PS Rajouri Garden and he received a call from complainant Amit Chawla alleging stabbing with a knife by his friend, which was recorded vide DD No. 137A. He added that thereafter, he and HC Kishan reached the spot but did not find anyone as the PCR had already taken the complainant Amit to DDU Hospital. He revealed that he met the complainant at the hospital and HC Kishan recorded his statement (Ex. PW- 1/A), prepared the tehrir and handed over the same to him for taking it to PS Rajouri Garden for registration of FIR. He came back around 01:00 am with the copy of the FIR and conducted the search of the knife, alongwith HC Kishan, but the same could not be found and likewise, no CCTV cameras were found on the spot. He added that FIR No. 238/22 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Gautam Johar & Anr. Page 5 of 15 Digitally signed by SHASHANK SHASHANK NANDAN BHATT NANDAN Date:
BHATT 2025.05.03
17:02:26
+0530
site plan (Mark A) was prepared by HC Kishan and signed by him. The witness remained firm in his version during cross-examination in almost all material aspects.
9. ASI Krishan Kumar (PW-4) deposed on the same lines as Ct. Ravi (PW-2). Additionally, he added that he prepared the tehrir (Ex. PW-4/B), which was signed by him and handed over to Ct. Ravi for registration of FIR. He added that the concerned doctor of DDU Hospital handed over the torn shirt of complainant with the seal of the hospital, which was taken into possession by him vide seizure memorandum (Ex. PW-4/C). He revealed that he gave notice u/s 41A Cr.P.C to accused persons (Ex. PW-4/D and Ex. PW-4/E). He stated that he prepared the site plan (Ex. PW-4/F). He also identified the shirt of the complainant (Ex. P-1). During cross-examination, the witness stated that he had not seen the injured wearing the shirt (Ex. P-3) and the same was not given to the concerned doctor by the injured in his presence. He admitted that the injured weighed about 120 kgs and, as per his opinion, the same could not have fit the injured. He admitted that when the shirt was produced before the court, it did not have any blood stains. He also added that when the shirt of the injured was handed over to him by the doctor, the injured was in another room as he was highly intoxicated.
10. HC Dinesh (PW-3) deposed that on 19.07.2022 he had collected sealed pullanda from malkhana and deposited the same at FSL, Rohini vide road certificate (Mark A) against acknowledgment (Mark B), which he subsequently submitted at the police station.
11. HC Pradeep (PW-5) deposed that he was the second IO in the present matter and stated that he had called the complainant, for the purpose of collecting his blood sample at DDU, which was taken vide memorandum (Ex. PW-5/A) and deposited the same at FSL, Rohini for expert opinion and subsequently, FSL result was collected, as per which, a match was obtained. He added that he took the Santro car in FIR No. 238/22 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Gautam Johar & Anr. Page 6 of 15 Digitally signed SHASHANK by SHASHANK NANDAN NANDAN BHATT BHATT Date: 2025.05.03 17:02:34 +0530 possession vide seizure memorandum (Ex. PW-5/B), which was later released to accused Gautam Johar on superdari. He identified the accused persons and the photographs of Santro car (Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2). He stated that after completion of the investigation, he prepared the chargesheet and filed it before the court. During cross-examination, he stated that the first IO had not disclosed the role of security guard qua sister, mother and wife of the complainant, who had helped the complainant. He denied the suggestion that no public witness/ family members were made witness in the present matter as the case is false.
12. In his statement recorded u/s 294 Cr.P.C the accused persons admitted the genuineness of FIR (Ex. A1), Endorsement on rukka (Ex. A2), Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act (Ex. A3) and MLCs of the injured (Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. A-4) and accordingly, witnesses namely- ASI Ramphool, Dr. Jitendra and Dr. Shubham Sharma were dropped from the list of witnesses.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
13. In the statement of the accused persons recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, the accused persons stated they have been falsely implicated in the present case and chose not lead defence evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
14. Thereafter the matter was listed for final arguments. During the course of final arguments, Ld. APP for the state prayed that the accused persons be convicted in the present case as the testimony of injured has remained unimpeached throughout the trial.
15. Per contra, Ld. counsel for the accused Gautam Johar submitted that the accused has filed a false case against the complainant as he had monetary dispute FIR No. 238/22 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Gautam Johar & Anr. Page 7 of 15 Digitally signed by SHASHANK NANDAN SHASHANK BHATT NANDAN Date:
BHATT 2025.05.03
17:02:47
+0530
with him. He added that the sequence of events narrated by the complainant during evidence is contradicted to a large extent by the contents of the FIR and statements recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He argued that no public witnesses have been added in the present case and the entire investigation appears to be shoddy, which does not establish the case of the prosecution. He prayed that accused Gautam Johar deserves to be acquitted in the present case.
16. Ld. counsel for accused Arjun Makhija argued that the complainant had himself admitted in his testimony that the name of accused Arjun Makhija was added in the present case only because he was present in the car at the time of the alleged incident. He drew the attention of the court to the fact that the complainant categorically stated during his examination in chief that at the time of the incident, accused Arjun Makhija had even asked accused Gautam as to why he stabbed the complainant.
LEGAL POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE PRESENT CASE
17. In the present case, the accusation against the accused persons is that they committed the offence punishable u/s 324/34 IPC. Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code deals with - 'Offences Affecting The Human Body'. The act of voluntarily causing simple hurt by a person to the other by use of dangerous weapons or means has been made punishable u/s 324 IPC. Furthermore, Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which is based on the adage- 'they also serve who only stand and wait' and criminalizes an act done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all such persons, in the same manner as if the act were done by each of such person. The primary ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 324/34 IPC are mainly threefold-
(1) The accused persons (either of the accused persons or all of them) must have voluntarily caused hurt to a victim.FIR No. 238/22
PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Gautam Johar & Anr. Page 8 of 15 Digitally signed by SHASHANK SHASHANK NANDAN BHATT NANDAN Date:
BHATT 2025.05.03
17:02:53
+0530
(2) Such hurt must have been caused by dangerous weapons or means, which
includes an instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or instrument which if used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death, or by means of fire/ heated substance, or by means of poison/ corrosive substance, or by means of explosive substance/ substance deleterious to the human body to inhale, swallow, receive in blood, or by means of an animal.
(3). The accused persons must have formed common intention to inflict the above mentioned injury and all or either of the accused persons must have inflicted the said injury in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused persons.
18. Before delving into the facts of the present case, it is apposite to bear in minds the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashish Batham Vs. State of MP (2002) 7 SCC 317 wherein it has been held that:-
"Realities or truth apart, the fundamental and basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged accused and till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible or unimpeachable evidence, the question of indicting or punishing an accused does not arise, merely carried away by the heinous nature of the crime or the gruesome manner in which it was found to have been committed. Mere suspicion, however strong or probable it may be is no effective substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the charge of commission of a crime and graver the charge is, greater should be the standard of proof required. Courts dealing with criminal cases at least should constantly remember that there is a long mental distance between "may be true" and "must be true" and FIR No. 238/22 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Gautam Johar & Anr. Page 9 of 15 Digitally signed by SHASHANK SHASHANK NANDAN NANDAN BHATT BHATT Date:
2025.05.03 17:03:00 +0530 this basic and golden rule only helps to maintain the vital distinction between "conjectures" and "sure conclusions" to be arrived at on the touchstone of a dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case as well as quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record."
19. The position of law as crystallized from the above discussion is that in criminal trials, the prosecution is expected to prove its case on the touchstone 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Mere suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot form the basis of convicting the accused, in the absence of credible oral and documentary evidence, which clearly establishes the case of the prosecution. Furthermore, mere weakness in the defence of the accused cannot substitute the requirement of proof which is expected from the prosecution in criminal trials.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
20. Upon examining the record in light of the above legal position, it emerges that in the instant matter, the case of the prosecution is that the accused persons formed a common intention to cause voluntary hurt to the victim with a knife (which is an instrument of cutting/ stabbing) and inflicted simple injuries on the abdomen and the left hand of the complainant. On the other hand, the accused Gautam Johar claimed that a false case had been filed against him by the complainant on account of monetary dispute and accused Arjun Makhija contended that as admitted by the complainant during his testimony, he had no role to play in the incident whatsoever and he had been implicated merely because he was sitting in the car at the time of the incident.
FIR No. 238/22 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Gautam Johar & Anr. Page 10 of 15 Digitally signed by SHASHANK SHASHANK NANDAN BHATT NANDAN Date: BHATT 2025.05.03 17:03:08 +0530 (I) Findings with respect to accused Gautam Johar:-
21. At the very outset, it is pertinent to note that the case of the prosecution rests completely on the testimony of star witness/ injured Amit Chawla. In this regard, it is apposite to bear in mind that in cases pertaining to physical assault, the testimony of injured witnesses holds a distinct place in the eye of law as an injured person is not ordinarily expected to give a false account of the incident during which he suffered injuries, unless there is cogent evidence to suggest the contrary. The law pertaining to the efficacy of the testimony of injured witness has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohar Singh Vs. State of UP (2002) 7 SCC 606, wherein it has been laid down that "The testimony of an injured witness has its own efficacy and relevancy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries on his body would show that he was present at the place of occurrence and has seen the occurrence by himself. Convincing evidence would be required to discredit an injured witness" . Additionally, there is no gainsaying in stating that the criminal courts must insist on the quality and not the quantity of evidence produced before them. The above preposition of law finds a mention in Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872/ Section 139 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 which categorically mentions that in order to prove a particular fact, no particular number of witnesses are required/ expected.
22. In the instant matter, injured- Amit Chawla (PW-1), during his testimony, specifically narrated the role of accused Gautam Johar by categorically stating that he had called Gautam Johar to his place for celebrating his (Gautam Johar's) birthday and he sat inside his Santro car after he reached his place. The injured further explained that an argument arose between them qua pending money disputes and the accused Gautam Johar took out a knife from the dashboard of his car, in the state of agitation, and stabbed him. Pertinently, the case of the prosecution primarily rests FIR No. 238/22 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Gautam Johar & Anr. Page 11 of 15 Digitally signed by SHASHANK SHASHANK NANDAN NANDAN BHATT BHATT Date:
2025.05.03 17:03:16 +0530 upon the testimony of complainant/PW-1 Amit Chawla as no other public witness has been produced by the prosecution in the present case. In such a situation, there is no gainsaying in stating that the testimony of the complainant Amit Chawla (PW-1) must be examined carefully so as to make it the sole basis for convicting the accused. Furthermore, since the previous enmity (qua pending monetary disputes between the complainant and the accused Gautam Johar) is not disputed, this court is also mindful of the fact that the testimony of the complainant needs to be examined in light of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Aslam @ Imran Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 365 wherein it has been held that previous enmity is a 'double edged weapon' and 'on one hand, it provides motive, and on the other hand it also does not rule out the possibility of false implication'.
23. Upon scrutinizing the testimony of the complainant in light of the above- mentioned facts and circumstances, it is pertinent to note that complainant Amit Chawla (PW-1) narrated contradictory versions regarding the events of the alleged incident as on one hand (in his cross-examination dated 06.07.2023), he stated that he was dropped by his friend Harvinder Singh near his residence (which is situated at Rajouri Garden), and on the other hand (in his cross-examination dated 26.07.2023), he stated that accused Gautam Johar picked him from Vikaspuri and he came to Rajouri Garden with accused Gautam Johar. Likewise, contrary to the case of the prosecution, as per which the accused Gautam Johar consumed liqour prior to the alleged incident, the complainant admitted in his cross-examination that accused Gautam Johar does not consume alcohol on Tuesdays and to the woes of the prosecution, the date of the incident i.e. 08.02.2022 was a Tuesday.
24. Furthermore, as argued by Ld. counsel for the accused Gautam Johar, the IO/SI Krishan (PW-4), categorically admitted during his cross examination, that the shirt (Ex. P-3), which as per the prosecution version was worn by the complainant at the FIR No. 238/22 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Gautam Johar & Anr. Page 12 of 15 Digitally signed by SHASHANK SHASHANK NANDAN NANDAN BHATT BHATT Date:
2025.05.03 17:03:23 +0530 time of the alleged incident, could not reasonably have fit him as the complainant had a heavy structure (as he weighed around 120 Kgs). In these circumstances, since there is credible material to discredit the version of the prosecution regarding the recovered shirt belonging to the complainant, the mere fact that the FSL report (Ex. A-5) gave a positive match between the blood sample of the complainant and the blood stains on the recovered shirt, does not lend any strength to the case of the prosecution. To add on, the conduct of the complainant after the alleged incident is also contrary to normal human conduct as he remained in constant touch with the accused Gautam Johar (as evidenced by whatapp chats Ex. (CW-1/DX-1(colly)), wherein the complainant is requesting the accused Gautam Johar to pay the school fees of his daughter. All these factors create serious doubts upon the veracity and genuineness of the version of the complainant, and his testimony does not inspire the confidence of this court.
25. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that no independent person has been made a witness by the IO in the present case and the said fact was stressed upon by the Ld. Counsel for the accused at the time of final arguments. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that the complainant Amit Chawla (PW-1), during his testimony, categorically stated that immediately after the incident, he was helped by the guard of the society and he had informed about the same to the police. As discussed hereinabove, the testimony of the complainant already suffers from various lacunae and in such a situation, the fact that the concerned guard was not made a witness by the prosecution, also casts an adverse effect on the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, although the complainant is an injured witness, whose testimony holds a distinct efficacy and relevancy in the eye of law, the fact that there are several contradictions in his version, coupled with the fact that he shared previous enmity with accused Gautam Johar, makes his version highly doubtful and the case of the FIR No. 238/22 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Gautam Johar & Anr. Page 13 of 15 Digitally signed by SHASHANK SHASHANK NANDAN NANDAN BHATT BHATT Date:
2025.05.03 17:03:30 +0530 prosecution regarding accused Gautam Johar inflicting stab wound on the hand and stomach of the complainant cannot be regarded to have been proved as per the prescribed legal standards.
(II) Findings with respect to accused Arjun Dev Makhija:-
26. The case of the prosecution, qua the role of accused Arjun Dev Makhija is that during the incident (wherein the complainant was allegedly stabbed by accused Gautam Johar), he remarked that the complainant must be taught a lesson (qua ongoing monetary disputes between the complainant and the accused Gautam Johar) and upon hearing the same, accused Gautam Johar stabbed the complainant. Contrary to the case of the prosecution, the complainant Amit Chawla (PW-1) categorically stated during his testimony that accused Arjun Dev Makhija had questioned accused Gautam Johar as to why he stabbed him (the complainant) and his name was added in the FIR merely because he was present in the car at the time of the alleged incident. The said version of the complainant makes it amply clear that as per the complainant himself, accused Arjun Dev Makhija had absolutely no role to play in the alleged incident and, thus, the prosecution has failed to establish its case qua accused Arjun Dev Makhija as per the prescribed legal standards.
CONCLUSION
27. In light of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the testimony of injured/ complainant Amit Chawla (PW-1) suffers from several inconsistencies, which cast a serious doubt upon the genuineness of his version. Additionally, the fact that the complainant had previous monetary disputes with accused Gautam Johar, make his version all the more unworthy of credit. To add on, the complainant turned completely hostile during his testimony qua the prosecution story regarding the role of accused Arjun Dev Makhija. Consequently, the FIR No. 238/22 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Gautam Johar & Anr. Page 14 of 15 Digitally signed by SHASHANK SHASHANK NANDAN NANDAN BHATT BHATT Date:
2025.05.03 17:03:43 +0530 prosecution has failed to establish its case as per the prescribed norms of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
28. Resultantly, accused persons- (1) Gautam Johar S/o Sh. Atul Johar and (2) Arjun Dev Makhija S/o Sh Fateh Chand stand acquitted under the accusation of committing the offence punishable u/s 324/34 IPC.
29. Bail bonds and surety bonds, if any, except furnished u/s 437A Cr.P.C stands cancelled. Case property, if any shall be disposed off after the expiration of the period to assail the judgment and in case of appeal, as per the directions of Ld. Appellate court.
30. Copy of judgment be give free of cost to the accused persons.
Digitally signed SHASHANK by SHASHANK NANDAN NANDAN BHATT BHATT Date: 2025.05.03 Dictated & pronounced (Shashank Nandan Bhatt) 17:03:52 +0530 in Open Court JMFC-02/West/Delhi/03.05.2025 On the 03.05.2025 FIR No. 238/22 PS Rajouri Garden State Vs. Gautam Johar & Anr. Page 15 of 15