New Delhi, March 2: A Delhi court recently acquitted five men accused of kidnapping a man in 2015 for ransom, emphasizing severe weaknesses, contradictions, and improbabilities in the prosecution's narrative.
Additional Sessions Judge Atul Ahlawat, in his order dated February 24, ruled that the evidence presented by the prosecution lacked credibility and cast substantial doubts, rendering the prosecution's story improbable and unbelievable.
Pradeep Gupta notably contradicted his own earlier statements, particularly regarding the alleged ransom call. He denied being informed by his brother-in-law about any such call and made notable changes to his account of being moved between locations after being kidnapped.
Judge Ahlawat highlighted Gupta's failure to convincingly explain why he raised no alarm during the alleged kidnapping, despite reportedly being transported openly through crowded areas on a motorcycle and later an autorickshaw.
In its concluding remarks, the court explicitly stated that the prosecution had "miserably failed" to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt, prompting the acquittal of all five accused individuals.
Additional Sessions Judge Atul Ahlawat, in his order dated February 24, ruled that the evidence presented by the prosecution lacked credibility and cast substantial doubts, rendering the prosecution's story improbable and unbelievable.
Key Accused Acquitted
The five individuals acquitted by the court include:- Rizwan
- Rohit
- Salim
- Gulzar
- Shera
Details of the Alleged Kidnapping
According to the prosecution's initial claims, Rajendra Gupta was kidnapped on July 12, 2015, and his son-in-law allegedly received a ransom call demanding ₹30,000. The prosecution’s case primarily depended on testimonies from Rajendra Gupta himself, his son-in-law and complainant Anil Kumar, and Gupta’s son, Pradeep Gupta.Witnesses Turn Hostile and Contradictory Statements
Significant issues arose during the trial, as the primary witnesses—Rajendra Gupta, Anil Kumar, and Pradeep Gupta—were declared hostile after they failed to support key aspects of the prosecution’s case. Even discounting their hostility, the court found their testimonies lacked consistency and credibility.Pradeep Gupta notably contradicted his own earlier statements, particularly regarding the alleged ransom call. He denied being informed by his brother-in-law about any such call and made notable changes to his account of being moved between locations after being kidnapped.
Judge Ahlawat highlighted Gupta's failure to convincingly explain why he raised no alarm during the alleged kidnapping, despite reportedly being transported openly through crowded areas on a motorcycle and later an autorickshaw.
Doubts Raised by Video Evidence and Call Records
The court noted the submission of video clippings and call detail records by the prosecution backfired spectacularly, further weakening their case. Judge Ahlawat remarked, “The video clippings opened a Pandora’s box for the prosecution. Instead of corroborating witnesses, they delivered a fatal blow to the prosecution’s entire narrative.”Investigation Criticized as 'Shoddy'
The investigating officer (IO) faced strong criticism from the court for conducting a "shoddy investigation." The court underscored the IO’s failure to adequately investigate crucial aspects of the case, especially the suspicious involvement of an unidentified woman. This oversight added further doubts regarding the reliability of the prosecution’s version.In its concluding remarks, the court explicitly stated that the prosecution had "miserably failed" to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt, prompting the acquittal of all five accused individuals.
Last updated by a enewsx:
