Delhi court acquits man in 2011 murder case

A Delhi court has acquitted a man in a 2011 murder case, saying the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt after key witnesses turned hostile and the forensic evidence did not support the case.

The court, however, convicted him for absconding after he pleaded guilty to the offence. Additional Sessions Judge Vandana was hearing the case against Amit Kumar, who was accused in the murder of property leader Ranbir Singh, who was shot in Bawana’s Pooth Khurd area in June 2011. An FIR was registered against the accused under IPC sections 302 and 120B and the Arms Act. In the order dated July 14, the court said, “There is no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and accordingly, the accused, Amit Kumar, deserves the benefit of doubt and hence stands acquitted.”

The court noted that the complainant and other material witnesses did not support the prosecution during the trial and failed to identify the accused.  It also said that the ballistic report did not link the recovered pistol with the bullets found in the deceased’s body. “Even vide the forensic evidence, no incriminating evidence could be proved against the accused persons as discussed above.

There is no CCTV footage or any independent public person, who may have been present at the time of the incident or even at the time of the alleged recovery of the weapon,” the judge said.

The judge also observed that the investigation suffered from several shortcomings, including failure to collect CCTV footage or associate independent public witnesses despite the incident taking place in broad daylight.

Contradictions were also found in the testimonies of police witnesses on the alleged recovery of the weapon.

Holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the court extended him the benefit of doubt and acquitted him of the murder and related charges.

The court, however, convicted Amit Kumar under Section 174A of the IPC after recording his guilty plea to the charge of absconding despite a proclamation issued by the court.