Court acquits three in 2017 firing case

A Delhi court has acquitted three men accused of firing at a man in Mundka in 2017, saying that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt as the complainant and his brother did not identify them as the assailants.

Additional Sessions Judge Shiv Kumar was hearing a case against Amit alias Toto, Rahul alias Kalu and another Amit, who were accused of charges under IPC Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 34 (common intention).

In an order dated September 26, the court said, “Complainant and brother of complainant have not identified the accused persons in the court as assailants and not supported the case of prosecution… prosecution has failed to prove all the charged offences against the accused persons.” Toto was also acquitted of charges under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act relating to possession and use of illegal firearm.

The case related to an incident on July 14, 2017, when Devender alias Dholu was allegedly assaulted and fired at by a group of men at Mundka’s Rani Khera Road.

According to the prosecution, the police later apprehended three men from bushes near the Rani Khera underpass. A pistol was allegedly recovered from Toto and two empty cartridges were recovered from the spot.

However, during trial, the complainant did not identify any of the accused in court. He told the court that it was dark at the time of the incident and that he could not identify the assailants. He also denied that a pistol had been recovered from Toto in his presence. The complainant’s brother, Joginder, also failed to identify accused and said he had not seen the assailants. He denied that the accused were arrested in his presence or that the pistol and cartridges were recovered in his presence.

The court also questioned the investigation, noting that the police did not join independent public witnesses or PCR officials despite their availability during the alleged apprehension and recovery.

It observed that the place of occurrence and the place where the accused were allegedly arrested were public places, with shops and houses nearby, but no independent witness was associated with the investigation.

The court further found the recovery of the pistol doubtful. It noted deficiencies relating to the sealing and handling of the case property, including the absence of a handing-over memo for the seal and non-production of the FSL form and certain records concerning the deposit and movement of the exhibits.

Although the forensic report established that the pistol was functional and the empty cartridges had been fired from it, the court held that this could not by itself prove that the weapon had been recovered from Toto.

The court consequently held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted all three accused.