Delhi District Court
State vs Aman Goyal on 3 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-08 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER: MS. SAYESHA CHADHA, DJS
FIR No. 576/2020
PS : Kotwali
U/s 323/341/506 IPC
State vs. Aman Goyal
Date of Institution of case : 16.08.2022
Date when Judgment reserved : 19.12.2025
Date on which Judgment pronounced : 03.02.2026
JUDGMENT
A. Case No. : 11372/2022
B. Date of Institution of Case : 16.08.2022
C. Date of Commission of Offence : 15.10.2020
D. Name of the complainant : Tarun
E. Name of the Accused : Aman Goyal
& his parentage and residence S/o Sh. Ashok Goyal,
R/o 4164, Gali No.12, Ajeet
Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi.
F. Offences complained of : U/s 323/341/506 Indian
Penal Code
G. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
H. Final order : Acquittal
I. Date of such order : 03.02.2026
Brief statement of reasons for decision of the case:
State Vs. Aman Goyal FIR No. 576/20 PS Kotwali 1/12
1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 15.10.2020 at about 2.00-02.30 pm, accused wrongfully restrained complainant Tarun and caused simple injuries on his person and threatened the complainant and thereby committing an offence punishable u/s 323/341/506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as IPC).
2. Upon conclusion of investigation, a final report was filed before the court on 16.08.2022 against the accused. Cognizance of offence punishable U/s 323/341/506 IPC was taken. Upon summoning, the accused appeared and copies of charge sheet were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C). Thereafter, notice for offence punishable u/s 323/341/506 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and opted for trial.
3. Thereafter, the prosecution was given the opportunity to substantiate the allegations against the accused. The prosecution examined 3 (Three) witnesses in support of its case:
4. PW-1 Dr. Surendra Kumar has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 15.10.2020, he was posted as CMO at the abovesaid hospital and at 03:54 pm, he examined the patient/victim namely Tarun S/o Vinod Kumar vide MLC No. 2140/2020. The abovesaid MLC exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A bearing his signature at point A and point B after initially examination and treatment the patient was referred to the ENT Department and was advised for admission under ENT. After seeing the injuries of the victim the kind/type of weapon was State Vs. Aman Goyal FIR No. 576/20 PS Kotwali 2/12 opined blunt by him at point C.
5. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-1 stated that the complainant came himself in the hospital and not through any police official. At the time of medical the complainant was conscious and oriented. The injuries can also be self implicated but less likely.
6. PW-2 Tarun has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 15.10.2022, he was going for lunch at around 2 pm to 3 pm on foot. When he reached Kaccha Bagh near Chandani Chowk Metro Station, he was suddenly attacked from his back side by 3 to 4 persons. They had beaten him and fled away from the spot. His gold chain was missing after the incident. He made call at 100 number. He was admitted at the hospital for around one week. He took rest for one month and after that he joined his duty. He has correctly identified the accused. He admitted that police official recorded his statement Ex. PW 2/A bearing his signature at point A. He admitted that he went to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital for his treatment. He admitted that he sustain injuries in the said incident. He admitted that the police official prepared the site plan of the incident at his instance. He admitted that accused had also threatened him by saying "agli baar tujhe nahi chodunga".
7. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-2 stated that he was a salesman on Lehanga and Sarree shop in Chandani Chowk. The name of the shop was Bhagwati shop. He was 41 years old and was doing the work of the salesman for the last 25 years. He used to reach at the shop by public transport i.e., via metro. He used to reach at his work around State Vs. Aman Goyal FIR No. 576/20 PS Kotwali 3/12 12 to 12:30 noon. He used to go for lunch at around 2 to 3 pm. He used to leave the work at around 8 pm. He did not remember the name of the hotel on which he went for lunch. 3 to 4 persons attacked him from behind. At this stage, the witness confronted with Ex. PW-2/A where it was recorded that accused along with three other persons had attacked on me and also recorded that accused Aman Goyal and his one friend beaten me while two other persons had hold him from behind. You were also salesman and known to him from around 10 years prior to the incident. There was no previous altercations between him and the accused however, there was a heating argument over a customer between him and accused prior to one year of the incident. He called his friend and narrated him about the incident. After that, his friend came at the spot along with one another person. After calling his friend, he called at 100 number. The distance between the PS Kotwali and the spot was around 300 meters. His friends took him to the hospital via auto. He voluntarily stated that police official written his complaint on his dictation. His treatment was started around half hour after he reached the hospital. He not remember the exact time when he reached the hospital. Police officials reached at the hospital before the treatment was started. He had also narrated about the incident to the doctors who conducted his treatment. His statement was recorded after around 10 to 12 days of the incident. He did not remember the date of his statement. He had also narrated about the incident to the police officials on the day of the incident. He did not State Vs. Aman Goyal FIR No. 576/20 PS Kotwali 4/12 remember whether the police officials recorded about the incident or not, on the day of incident. He admitted that he refused to give the statement to the police on the day of incident as he was not in a position to give his statement due to injury. At this stage, witness confronted with Ex.PW 2/A, where it was recorded that the complainant refused to give his statement due to bad health condition of his daughter. He admitted the police official obtained his signature on the statement. He did not have any altercation with other colleagues but he had some heated arguments with other persons indulging in same profession. He voluntarily stated that he he did not have any heated arguments with other persons in the same profession. He admitted that he work on commission basis. He denied that accused falsely implicated in the present case. He denied that the injuries were self inflicted. He denied that no such incident was happened as he told in his complaint. He denied that there was a previous equanimity between me and the accused due to professional rivalry as they call the customers to the shops. He denied that there was no altercation, as he deliberately went to the hospital after calling 100 number. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
8. PW-3 SI Suresh Kumar has deposed in his examination- in-chief that on 15.10.2020, he received a DD No. 62A regarding quarrel. Thereafter, he went to the spot i.e. near Metro Station Chandni Chowk. At the spot, he came to know that injured was already shifted to Aruna Asif Ali Hospital. Thereafter, he went to the hospital and found injured Tarun under treatment but he did not give his statement at that State Vs. Aman Goyal FIR No. 576/20 PS Kotwali 5/12 time due to the pain. He collected the MLC of the injured and returned to the PS. On 26.10.2020, injured Tarun came to the PS and he recorded his statement Ex. PW2/A bearing his signature at point B and got registered the FIR. He alongwith complainant went to the spot and prepared the site plan on his instance Ex. PW3/A bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, they search for the accused persons but they could not be found. He returned to PS. Later on, he obtained the opinion on the MLC of complainant and it was simple. On 07.10.2021, accused visited the PS and he recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW3/B bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he released the accused by serving the notice u/s 41 A CrPC. He has correctly identified accused through VC.
9. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-3 stated that he did not remember the time when he received DD No. 62A. At about 07:00 pm, he reached at the hospital. The complainant was conscious oriented at the time when he reached at the hospital. He did not find and CCTV camera at the spot. MLC was already prepared when he reached at the Hospital. During his investigation he found only one accused namely Aman Goyal and no gold chain was recovered during the investigation. The distance between place of incident and PS approx 500 meters. He had not interrogated about the previous enmity between the accused persons and the complainant. He denied that accused and complainant have profession rivalry and due to this complainant filed the false complaint against the accused. He denied that the accused falsely implicated in this case. He denied that all the document were prepared while sitting at the PS. He admitted State Vs. Aman Goyal FIR No. 576/20 PS Kotwali 6/12 that no public person was joined in the investigation. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
10. The prosecution evidence was closed on 06.10.2025 and the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 read with section 281 of CrPC on 11.11.2025, wherein he pleaded his innocence and stated to have been falsely implicated. The accused has not opted to lead defence evidence. Final arguments were heard. I have cogitated over the submissions made by Ld. APP for the state and Ld. Counsel for the accused person.
DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREON:
11. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for state and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and carefully perused the documents on record.
12. In order to ensure seamless appraisal of evidence, the court has framed following point of determination :
Whether the accused Aman Goyal on 15.10.2020 at about 2.00- 2:30 PM, wrongfully restrained the complainant Tarun and caused simple injuries on his person as well as threatened him by committing an offence under section 323, 341 and 506 of IPC.
13. The burden to prove the above point of determination squarely rests upon the prosecution, which is required to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and such presumption continues unless rebutted by cogent evidence. It is a settled position of law, as reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kali Ram v. State of State Vs. Aman Goyal FIR No. 576/20 PS Kotwali 7/12 Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808, that if two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted.
14. The prosecution examined the complainant as PW2, who deposed that on 15.10.2020, while he was going for lunch on foot at around 2:00 to 2:30 PM, he was suddenly attacked by 3-4 persons, including the accused Aman Goyal. He stated that he was beaten up, that the assailants fled from the spot, and that his gold chain was found missing after the incident. He claimed to have made a call at the hundred number and remained admitted in the hospital for about a week. The complainant correctly identified the accused in court during trial. However, a careful scrutiny of his testimony reveals material inconsistencies and contradictions which substantially impair its credibility.
15. The incident allegedly took place on 15.10.2020, but the statement on the Rukka was recorded on 26.10.2020 after a delay of eleven days. In his deposition, the complainant attributed the delay to his own injuries, whereas the Rukka records the reason as the ill health of his daughter. These two conflicting explanations for the delay in recording the statement raise serious doubts about the authenticity of the prosecution version. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1972) 3 SCC 393, held that unexplained delay in lodging an FIR or recording a statement is a circumstance that creates suspicion and affords scope for embellishment or afterthoughts.
16. The complainant further stated that he had called his friend State Vs. Aman Goyal FIR No. 576/20 PS Kotwali 8/12 immediately after the incident and narrated the occurrence to him, and that his friend, along with another person, arrived at the spot. However, neither the friend nor the other person was cited or examined as a witness during trial. Their non-examination deprives the prosecution case of independent corroboration. The alleged place of occurrence is near Chandni Chowk Metro Station, which is admittedly a busy public area with considerable footfall, yet no independent public witness was joined in the investigation nor any CCTV footage produced to substantiate the version of the complainant. In cases where the occurrence is said to have taken place in a public place, absence of independent witnesses casts serious doubt on the prosecution story.
17. As per the medical evidence on record, the MLC prepared by CW1 Dr. Surendra Kumar shows that the complainant was referred to the ENT department but was not advised for admission in the hospital. This completely contradicts the complainant's statement that he remained hospitalized for about a week. No discharge summary, admission record, or any other document has been produced to prove the alleged hospital stay. Similarly, the claim regarding the missing gold chain remains wholly unsubstantiated. No recovery was effected from the accused, nor did the complainant furnish any purchase bill or ownership proof of the alleged chain to the Investigating Officer. These discrepancies further erode the reliability of the prosecution version.
18. It also emerges from the record that there existed prior enmity State Vs. Aman Goyal FIR No. 576/20 PS Kotwali 9/12 between the parties. The defence has stated during the recording of SA that an FIR No. 810/23, PS Kotwali is pending, in which the present accused Aman Goyal is the complainant and one Kapil admittedly a friend of the present complainant is an accused. During cross-examination, the complainant admitted that there had been a heated argument between him and the accused about a customer nearly a year prior to the alleged incident. This lends substantial weight to the defence argument that the present complaint may have been lodged due to animosity or to settle personal scores. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aslam @ Imran Vs. State of MP, 2025, INSC 403 held that prior enmity is a double edge sword. On one hand, it provides motive and on the other hand, it also does not rule the possibility of false implicatioin. The testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with greater caution and ordinarily requires corroboration from independent sources. No such corroboration exists in the present case.
19. PW3 SI Suresh, the Investigating Officer, admitted during cross-examination that he is not an eyewitness and had only met the complainant in the hospital. He also stated that no recovery was effected from the accused during the course of investigation. This admission reflects investigative lapses and the absence of any material evidence linking the accused with the alleged incident.
20. It is well recognized that a conviction can rest solely on the testimony of the complainant if it is found to be credible, consistent, and of sterling quality. However, the Hon'ble Supreme State Vs. Aman Goyal FIR No. 576/20 PS Kotwali 10/12 Court in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21, clarified that such a witness must be wholly reliable, his version must inspire confidence, and it must be free from contradictions or exaggerations. In the present case, the testimony of the complainant is riddled with material discrepancies, delayed reporting, contradictions in medical and factual details, and absence of corroboration, which prevent it from attaining the status of a "sterling witness."
21. The prosecution is obligated to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. As laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, the chain of circumstances must be so complete as to leave no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. Here, the chain of circumstances is not only incomplete but also inconsistent. The contradictions in the complainant's version are not minor discrepancies but go to the root of the prosecution case. The lack of corroboration, non-examination of material witnesses, doubtful medical evidence, and investigative shortcomings collectively create serious doubts.
22. In view of the totality of the evidence and the inconsistencies noted above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the complainant does not inspire confidence, and the alleged chain of circumstances does not point unerringly towards the guilt of the accused. Consequently, the State Vs. Aman Goyal FIR No. 576/20 PS Kotwali 11/12 accused Aman Goyal is entitled to the benefit of doubt and is hereby acquitted of all charges framed against him under Sections 323, 341, and 506 IPC. Digitally signed by SAYESHA Announced in the open court SAYESHA CHADHA CHADHA Date:
2026.02.06 17:34:32 today.
+0530 (SAYESHA CHADHA) JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-08, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi [This judgment contains 12 pages and each page bears the initials of undersigned and the last page bears the complete sign of undersigned.] State Vs. Aman Goyal FIR No. 576/20 PS Kotwali 12/12