Delhi District Court
State vs . Aryan Chaudhary on 3 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF ASJ (FTC)-02, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS
PRESIDED OVER BY : SH. VISHAL PAHUJA
CNR No. DLST01-00948-2017
STATE VS. ARYAN CHAUDHARY
FIR NO. 540/17
PS: NEB SARAI
U/S: 308/34 IPC
State
Versus
Aryan Chaudhary,
s/o Sh. Sohan Lal,
r/o A-12, 108/B, Ward no. 9,
Kishangarh Mehrauli, New Delhi. .... Accused
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 07.12.2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT/ ORDER : 03.08.2023
FINAL ORDER : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE FACTS FOR DECISION:
1. Brief facts of the case are that on receipt of DD no. 7A dated 10.10.2017, HC Makhan Lal along with HC Dharam Pal reached at the spot i.e. D-216A Krishna Park near Tubewel. On reaching there they came to know that injured has been shifted to hospital. On the spot, they found motorcycle bearing no.
DL3SCZ0397 make Discover colour silver. Thereafter, they received MLC no. 319929/17 from Safdarjung Hospital, and FIR No. 540/17 State v. Aryan Chaudhary Page 1/11 where they met injured Ashish and recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A.
2. As per the complaint of injured Ashish, on 10.10.2017 at about 03.00 AM, when he reached at the water pump at D-216A Krishna Park he found a taxi number white car stationed there in which two boys were sitting. Injured Ashish said them that there is a tubewell ahead in the street and their car would not be able to pass from there. On this, the said boys came down from the car and started arguing with the complainant/injured and started beating him. They hit him on his head with some unknown object. On resistance, those boys bite him on his hand and fled away from the spot. After sometime, they both again came to the spot on motorcycle but on raising alarm by the complainant they ran away from there leaving their motorcycle on the spot. On the statement of the complainant/injured, present FIR was registered against accused Aryan Chaudhary.
3. During the investigation, accused was arrested. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. After the conclusion of the investigation carried out in the present case, police filed the charge sheet against the accused Aryan Chaudhary for commission of offence U/s 308/34 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC).
4. Vide Order dated 07.12.2017, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned took cognizance of the offence u/s 308 IPC qua accused Aryan Chaudhary and called him to face the trial. He was supplied with the charge sheet and other relevant documents FIR No. 540/17 State v. Aryan Chaudhary Page 2/11 in compliance to section 207/208 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the present matter was received by way of committal to the Court of Sessions on 12.12.2017.
CHARGE
5. Vide order dated 15.03.2018, charge for the offence punishable u/s 308/34 IPC was framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court against the accused Aryan Chaudhary @ Suraj who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
6. The prosecution in support of present case has examined 3 (three) witnesses (PW in short) in total that are discussed as follows:-.
7. PW1 Sh. Ashish is the complainant/injured in the present case and is the star witness of the prosecution who deposed in view of his complaint Ex. PW1/A. He further proved and exhibited on record seizure memo of the motorcycle as Ex.PW1/B, arrest memo of accused as Ex.PW1/C, personal search memo of accused as Ex.PW1/D and site plan as Ex.PW1/E. This witness identified the accused before the court during trial. PW1 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
8. PW2 Ct. Akhilesh deposed qua the manner and his involvement in the investigation. This witness along with the IO reached at H. No. 68A, K-2nd, Sangam Vihar and the FIR No. 540/17 State v. Aryan Chaudhary Page 3/11 complainant where at the instance of complainant accused was arrested vide memo already Ex.PW1/C, and his personal search was conducted vide memo already Ex.PW1/D. This witness identified the accused before the court during trial. PW2 was not cross examined on behalf of accused.
9. PW3 HC Makhan Lal is the Investigating Officer who deposed qua the manner and his involvement in the investigation. This witness deposed more or less on the same lines as that of PW2 Ct. Akhilesh. This witness relied upon the documents proved and exhibited on record by PW1. Apart from that he proved and exhibited on record the copy of FIR as Ex.PW3/1, disclosure statement of accused as Ex.PW3/2 and MLC of accused as Ex.PW3/3. This witness correctly identified the accused before the court during trial. PW3 was cross examined on behalf of accused.
10. During trial accused admitted and did not dispute the genuiness of the documents i.e. FIR no. 540/17 as Ex. A1, DD no. 7A dated 10.10.2017 as Ex. A2 and MLC of complainant as Ex. A3 u/s 294 Cr.P.C.
11. No other PW was left to be examined, hence PE was closed.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C.:
12. Statement of accused recorded separately U/s 313 Cr.P.C in FIR No. 540/17 State v. Aryan Chaudhary Page 4/11 which all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to him. The accused controverted and denied the allegations levelled against him. Accused opted not to lead any defence evidence.
ARGUMENTS:
13. Ld. Additional PP for State has argued that prosecution witnesses have supported the case of prosecution and their testimony has remained unrebutted. It is further submitted that the victim has testified against the accused and clearly established his role in commission of the offence. That on a combined reading of testimony of prosecution witnesses, offences U/s 308/34 IPC is proved against the accused Aryan Chaudhary beyond reasonable doubt so he should be convicted accordingly.
14. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused has stated that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused. It is further argued that there are material discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of star witness and there is no independent public witness that has corroborated the testimony of the victim. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused deserves to be acquitted.
FINDINGS:
15. Arguments adduced by Ld. Additional PP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused have been heard. Evidences and FIR No. 540/17 State v. Aryan Chaudhary Page 5/11 documents on record perused carefully.
16. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made before me. Accused is indicted for the offence u/s 308/34 IPC. Section 308 IPC provides punishment for attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
17. After appreciating the evidence and going through the testimony of the prosecution witnesses this Court finds the accused not guilty for any offence charged herein and he deserve acquittal for the following reasons:-
18. PW1 Ashish is the victim and the complainant in the present case on whose testimony the case of prosecution rests. This witness being the star witness was crucial for establishing the case of the prosecution however, his testimony contained material discrepancies and contradictions that appeared during his cross examination rendering his testimony highly unreliable to be acted upon.
19. First and foremost, PW1 in his first complaint exhibited on record as Ex. PW1/A stated that there were two boys in the taxi number white car who beaten him. On the contrary in his examination in chief recorded before the court during the trial he stated that there were four passengers of the car who gave him beatings whereas during his subsequent part of the examination in chief he stated that police apprehended two boys on the spot whereas there is only one accused before the court and there is no FIR No. 540/17 State v. Aryan Chaudhary Page 6/11 whisper about the status of the second accused in the story of the prosecution. Further, in contradiction to the aforesaid statements PW1 during his cross examination claimed that there were three persons, car driver and two passengers who assaulted him. The discrepancy with respect to the number of assailants stated by the complainant at different stages is a material discrepancy and the statement of the complainant is found to be unbelievable.
20. Secondly, in his previous statement Ex. PW1/A he stated that he was hit by some unknown thing on his head by the said boys whereas in his examination in chief he stated to have been hit by a brick whereas no such brick has been seized by the police from the spot. Further PW1 claimed in his examination in chief that two boys who came at the spot on the motorcycle they were carrying a knife for stabbing him whereas no such knife has been recovered by the police or seized in this case. The stance of the victim had major variations at different stages of his deposition.
21. Thirdly, PW1 during his cross examination stated that at the time of the incident his father was with him whereas this fact has not been revealed by PW1 either in his previous statement Ex. PW1/A or in his examination in chief. PW1 further stated in his cross examination that the police has recorded the statement of his father whereas the prosecution has not mentioned anywhere about the presence of father of the victim nor his statement was recorded by the police. PW1 in his previous statement mentioned the gathering of people at the spot and the presence of public persons at the place of incident is also FIR No. 540/17 State v. Aryan Chaudhary Page 7/11 admitted by PW3 IO HC Makhan Lal in his testimony, however, the prosecution has failed to explain why no independent public witness has been joined in the proceedings nor the statement of any such person has been recorded by the police for giving strength to its version. The aforesaid discrepancy also shake the veracity of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
22. Another major discrepancy in the version of PW1 is that, in his examination in chief he stated to be involved in supplying the gas cylinder in the office whereas during his cross examination he claimed to have been working in the office of property dealer namely Pramod Gujjar. The complainant has claimed that he used to start water motor for filling the water in the water tank early morning but no such fact has been corroborated by the owner or employer of the property D-216/A, Krishna Park Khanpur. The owner of the office has not been examined by the investigating agency who could actually establish the claim of the victim PW1.
23. In his examination in chief PW1 stated that after the assailants flee from the spot with the car, he informed the police at 100 number and thereafter two motorcycle borne assailants came and in the meanwhile police official also reached at the spot and apprehended them whereas in his previous statement Ex. PW1/A this witness stated that after the car left the spot many public persons gathered there and after sometime two boys again came on motorcycle and upon raising of alarm by him they ran away from the spot after leaving behind their motorcycle. Thereafter, he made the call at 100 number. The aforesaid FIR No. 540/17 State v. Aryan Chaudhary Page 8/11 sequence of events changed in the previous statement and in the subsequent statement of PW1 which is again a material discrepancy that goes to the root of the case of the prosecution.
24. There is another major discrepancy in the case of the prosecution that is with respect to the time and place of arrest of the accused. As per examination in chief of PW1 the accused was arrested on the spot in the morning itself whereas in his previous statement Ex.PW1/A the accused ran away from the spot by the time police came on his call. As per PW2 and 3 the accused was arrested from the house bearing no. 68A, K-2nd Sangam Vihar which is quite at a distance far away from the place of incident that is D-216 A, Krishna Park, Khanpur. Further as per the complainant, accused was arrested on the spot at the time of incident in the early morning of 10.10.2017 whereas the arrest memo PW1/C reveals the time of arrest as 6 PM. PW1 during his cross examination stated that he had not visited with the police officials at any place and his signatures were obtained on the documents in the police station where he had also seen the accused. The aforesaid statement of the PW1 apparently shows that accused was not arrested in his presence at the spot rather he was already under the custody of the police. Hence, the possibility of false implication of the accused in this case cannot be rule out.
25. Further, the motorcycle in question was seized by the police however, the owner of the same has not been examined by the investigating officer nor the fact as to how the accused came into the possession of the motorcycle in question has been FIR No. 540/17 State v. Aryan Chaudhary Page 9/11 determined during the investigation. No evidence to that effect has been led on record by the prosecution. Further the complainant has not named the accused in his previous statement nor he gave any description qua his assailants so it would have been expected from the investigating officer to get the test identification parade of the accused conducted but he failed to do so. The investigating officer also failed to examine the owner of H.no. 68A from where the accused was arrested. Nothing on record suggest any connection of the accused with the aforesaid address, hence, it cannot be relied upon.
26. The evidence discussed above in the form of testimony of the complainant PW1 and the investigating officer PW3 shows that there are material contradictions, discrepancies and variations in the story of the prosecution. The testimony of PW1 that is the star witness of the prosecution does not inspire confidence and his credibility remained under cloud of doubt due to material improvised and contradictory statements.
27. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. The burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts on to the accused. Also it is a settled proposition of criminal law that accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt if any in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
FIR No. 540/17 State v. Aryan Chaudhary Page 10/1128. In view of the discussion above, this Court is of the view that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The role of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime is doubtful. The evidence coming on record entitles the accused for the benefit of doubt. Therefore, the accused Aryan Chaudhary is hereby acquitted of the charges levelled against him in the present case.
Digitally signed by VISHAL VISHAL PAHUJA Date: PAHUJA 2023.08.03 16:17:40 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (VISHAL PAHUJA) COURT ON 03.08.2023 ASJ (FTC) -02 SOUTH DISTRICT SAKET COURTS
Containing 11 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
Digitally signed by VISHALVISHAL PAHUJA PAHUJA Date:
2023.08.03 16:17:45 +0530 (VISHAL PAHUJA) ASJ (FTC) -02 SOUTH DISTRICT SAKET COURTS FIR No. 540/17 State v. Aryan Chaudhary Page 11/11