NEERAJ KUMAR CHANDHOK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under proviso to section 372, CrPC by the complainant. He impugns the judgment dated 13.10.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court, whereby all the three accused were acquitted in case registered as FIR No. 308/04 under section 304/323/341, IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution story, briefly described, was that the appellant/complainant, Neeraj Kumar Chandhok was married to Ameena on 2.10.2003, but they were separated. While the Appellant had initiated divorce proceedings in the court concerned, the accused Ameena had filed an application before Delhi Commission for Women seeking her maintenance and return of her dowry articles. The appellant lodged a Complaint dated 13.09.04 alleging that on 13.9.2004 at 4 PM, when he and his brother Chander Kumar came out from the Women's Commission, Delhi after attending a hearing, they were stopped by Vikas Chawla who started quarrelling with his brother, while Promila and Ameena caught hold of him; that they beat up his brother. It was also alleged that two more unidentified persons joined the accused persons in beating him and his brother; and that the said two unidentified persons caught hold of his brother while Vikas gave him (Chander) fist blows on his head and mouth, and also inflicted injuries on his (Chander's) private parts. His brother then fell down unconscious; thereafter, Vikas, Promila and Ameena ran back inside the office of Women's Commission, and the other two assailants fled the spot. The appellant also took his brother inside the office, after which the police were called. The Appellant's brother was declared dead upon being taken to LNJP hospital.

(3.) THE Trial Court, after considering evidence on record, concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the accused. The three accused were thus acquitted. She held that the medical evidence did not establish the allegations made by the complainant regarding the injuries inflicted on the deceased by accused Vikas. On the contrary, the medical evidence suggested that the deceased had been suffering from coronary insufficiency disease and that both his left and right arteries had blockage to a substantial extent; moreover, his death was caused on account of coronary insufficiency disease and its sequel (heart attack), which could have been, it was held, precipitated by scuffle said to have taken place between the complainant and the deceased on one hand, and the accused and two others, on the other. It was further held that the theory that two unidentified persons also joined the accused in beating the deceased had also not been established. The Trial Court also relied on the fact that no public witnesses, who were present during the incident, were examined during trial to disbelieve the prosecution version that accused Vikas had given injuries to the deceased. Furthermore, the charges against accused Promila and Ameena were disbelieved as it was established through the testimony of prosecution's own witnesses that these two accused were carrying their infants on that day.