New Delhi, March 5 A Delhi court has acquitted four men accused of attempting to murder a contractor and his guards during an alleged robbery attempt near the Delhi-Mumbai Expressway in 2023, noting that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt as key witnesses turned hostile.
Additional Sessions Judge Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan acquitted Arvind Kumar, Karan Singh, Khurram, and Mohammad Noor Jamal, who were charged under sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting while armed with a deadly weapon), 149 (vicarious liability in an unlawful assembly), 307 (attempt to murder), 325 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt), 323 (voluntarily causing simple hurt), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The complainant, Mohammad Imran, alleged that on the intervening night of October 20-21, 2023, the accused and their associates attacked him and his guards with iron rods and sticks after being confronted over an alleged theft attempt at a sewer construction site near Khizrabad.
In its judgment dated February 26, the court observed that all the key witnesses, including the complainant and injured persons, did not support the prosecution's case on crucial aspects.
The court noted that the complainant and injured witnesses who were working as guards, namely, Iqbal, Shahzad, and Rahis, were declared hostile and failed to consistently identify the accused or attribute specific roles to them.
Regarding the remaining witnesses who were not injured, the court noted, "The remaining witnesses were formal in nature and were police officials who had conducted the investigation in this case. Their testimony was not sufficient to convict the accused persons with the offenses with which they were charged. Their testimony only talked about the manner in which they had conducted the investigation."
The complainant had repeatedly mentioned a guard named Raj Kumar who allegedly informed him about the theft and was a crucial eyewitness to the entire incident. However, the court noted that he was never examined by the prosecution.
The prosecution witnesses alleged that several public persons had gathered at the time of the incident, but the court noted, "The prosecution did not make any effort to involve these public persons during the investigation of this matter. In the absence of the veracity of the testimonies of these public witnesses, their testimony became inconsequential. It did not help the prosecution's case."
The defence counsel had earlier argued that the accused persons were falsely implicated in the case. He stated that there were several contradictions in the testimonies of all witnesses, and none of the witnesses supported the prosecution's story, causing the court to declare them hostile. He also argued that the accused persons had not been identified, and their roles had not been narrated by any of the witnesses.
