A Delhi court acquitted two men in an attempted murder case in Seelampur due to hostile witnesses and flawed evidence, raising questions about the investigation and prosecution.
Key Points
- A Delhi court acquitted Bilal and Sahil of attempted murder after the victim and main complainant became hostile witnesses.
- The court found inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence, including the recovery of a blood-stained knife.
- The victim and complainant failed to identify the accused in court, undermining the prosecution's case.
- The judge criticised the medical evidence for lacking specific reasoning to classify injuries as 'grievous'.
- The court highlighted the unlikelihood of an accused person retaining a blood-stained weapon in an accessible location.
A Delhi court has acquitted two men who were facing trial for allegedly attempting to murder their neighbour in the Seelampur area after the victim and the main complainant turned "hostile" and failed to identify the attackers.
Principal District and Sessions Judge Sanjay Sharma was hearing a case against Bilal and Sahil who were accused of stabbing their neighbour on June 30, 2020.
In an order dated March 27, the court said, "There is no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against either of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 307 (attempt to murder), 120B (criminal conspiracy) the IPC and against accused Sahil for the offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act".
According to the prosecution, the complainant, Tarif, alleged that his brother Shakir was stabbed by Bilal multiple times in the waist, abdomen, and armpit. The motive was attributed to a quarrel that had occurred two days ago.
However, during the trial, both the injured victim (Shakir) and the complainant (Tarif) failed to support the police's case.
Shakir testified that while he was stabbed, he could not see the assailant because it was totally dark.
Similarly, Tarif, who had initially named Bilal in the FIR, failed to identify either of the accused in open court. Both witnesses were cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor but remained firm that they did not see who committed the crime.
"The injured and the complainant both turned hostile regarding the identity of the accused and did not identify them as the assailants even in the cross-examination," the court said.
Loopholes in Prosecution's Evidence
The court also pointed out several loopholes in the prosecution's evidence. Regarding the recovery of a blood-stained knife from Sahil's house two days after the incident, the judge termed it "highly unlikely" that an accused would retain such a weapon in an unlocked almirah.
"The recovery of the knife from an open almirah cannot be attributed or connected to the accused, to say that it was kept by him alone when the almirah was accessible to other members of the house as well," the judge said.
Criticising the medical evidence, the court remarked that while doctors labelled the injuries as "grievous," they provided no specific reasoning as required under IPC Section 320.
"The prosecution has failed to prove its case against either of the accused... they are hereby acquitted," the court held, ordering the discharge of their personal and surety bonds.
