A Delhi court acquitted a man accused of attempted murder, highlighting the critical importance of reliable evidence and witness testimony in criminal trials.
Key Points
- A Delhi court acquitted Aamir in an attempted murder case due to the prosecution's failure to prove his identity as the assailant.
- The case involved an alleged knife attack on Mohammad Suhail in Jafrabad, Delhi, in October 2020.
- Key witnesses provided inconsistent statements and failed to reliably identify the accused, Aamir, during the trial.
- The alleged weapon used in the attempted murder was never recovered during the police investigation.
- The court emphasised that the prosecution failed to establish Aamir's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to his acquittal.
A court here has acquitted a man accused of attempting to murder a youth during a quarrel in northeast Delhi's Jafrabad area in 2020, saying that the prosecution failed to establish his identity as the assailant beyond a reasonable doubt.
Additional Sessions Judge Kumar Rajat was hearing a case against Aamir, who was accused of attempting to murder Mohammad Suhail with a knife after an altercation.
In an order dated March 27, the court said, "It is observed that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused Aamir qua offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, thus, a benefit of doubt is given to the accused on the basis of above-noted principles and facts established on record."
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on October 9, 2020, when the complainant, Mohammad Suhail, alleged that Aamir attacked him with a knife after an altercation over a scooter in Chauhan Bangar, Jafrabad.
The victim claimed he sustained injuries to his neck and hand and was later taken to the hospital by relatives.
Trial and Witness Testimony
During the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, including the complainant and alleged eyewitnesses. However, the court noted that key witnesses either turned hostile or gave inconsistent statements during cross-examination.
"The evidence led by the prosecution is not reliable, cogent and has a lot of infirmities as there are a lot of material variations, omissions, inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of the injured/eye witnesses led by the prosecution and it failed to establish the identity of the accused," the judge said.
The court observed that the identity of the accused as the assailant remained doubtful as witnesses contradicted their earlier statements and did not support the prosecution's case.
Lack of Evidence and Weapon Recovery
It further noted that the alleged weapon of offence was never recovered during the investigation.
"These medical and forensic reports prove that the injuries were caused to injured Suhail with a sharp weapon, but since the identity of accused Aamir as the assailant is doubtful ... reports and MLC do not prove the charge against accused Aamir. Also, the weapon of offence has not been recovered," the court said.
The court said such evidence alone could not establish the accused's guilt in the absence of reliable identification.
