Father, son acquitted in assault case

A man and his son, accused of conspiring to grievously injure their neighbour, have been acquitted by a Delhi court which said testimonies of witnesses "created doubt over the version of the complainant".
Additional Sessions Judge Gautam Manan absolved south-west Delhi residents Tara Chand and his son Sohan, who had allegedly sent three men to beat complainant Dev Raj in a hair salon, of the charges of criminal conspiracy under section 120B and abetment of attempt to commit culpable homicide under sections 109 and 308 IPC.
"The testimonies of salon owner and hair dresser, being neutral and independent witnesses have not only created a doubt on the version of the complainant but also dented the case of the prosecution. The benefit of doubt so created must be extended to the accused," the judge said while acquitting Chand and Sohan.

The court noted that the witnesses had denied that Chand and Sohan were present outside the salon at the time of the assault on Dev Raj and hence it could not be proved that they abetted the three unknown persons to beat him.
"I am afraid there is absolutely no evidence on record to suggest that the accused had conspired with the assailants of the complainant to beat him," the judge said.
According to the prosecution, on the night of October 27, 2010, Dev Raj was in a hair salon in Mahavir Enclave area when three unidentified men entered with sticks in their hands and started beating him.

Raj received grievous injuries and was taken to a nearby hospital where police had recorded his statement.

It said that Raj told the police that during the incident, he saw the father-son duo standing outside the salon and that they had instructed the three men to beat him up.
Raj's brother, who had a shop near the salon, deposed that he saw the duo running towards their house from the salon.
Raj and his brother told the court that they had previous animosity with Chand and Sohan as they had not permitted Raj to get the sewer drain cleaned and quarrels had taken place between them on several occasions.

In their defence, the duo claimed to have been falsely implicated by Raj due to previous animosity and contended that Raj was already facing trial on their complaint for offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt under section 325 of the IPC.