Delhi court clears man accused of killing father, cites lack of evidence

The judge noted the probe produced no call records, witnesses or forensic links and said motive alone could not support framing a charge.

A Delhi court has discharged a 36-year-old man of a murder charge after Delhi Police arrested him earlier this year for allegedly killing his father in Narela and labelled him a “mastermind” who planned and contracted the murder.

Police had claimed a contract killing plot over property shares but the body was recovered only after a co accused led investigators to an open drain. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

The victim, Ramesh Bhardwaj, 67, a resident of Rohini Sector 5 who ran a dry cleaners’ shop, had been reported missing on January 29 by his daughter, Ekta Arora. She told police he had gone to his employee Jitendra’s house in Narela. She also said she received a call from her father’s mobile number from a person demanding ₹10 lakh as ransom but without specifying when or where to deliver it. His phone switched off soon after.

Police said that during CCTV analysis it was found that Bhardwaj was last seen with Jitendra. Both he and his son were seen transporting a gunny bag in an e-rickshaw. Investigators then arrested Vishal, who police claimed disclosed that he and his father Jitendra were asked by Bhardwaj’s son Luv Bhardwaj to kill his father because the victim planned to leave all his property to his daughters. Police said Vishal told them that Luv offered ₹10 lakh for the killing and paid ₹40,000 in advance.

On November 18, the court said the case rested only on motive and lacked “any admissible credible or sustainable evidence which could hold water against the accused, Luv Bhardwaj.” The court added that “the prosecution has not brought even an iota of prima facie evidence” showing Luv ever contacted co-accused Abhishek, alias Vishal, or Jitender by phone or in person. It said there was no eyewitness, no forensic or circumstantial evidence, and no confession. “Charging the accused, Luv Bhardwaj, in such a situation would be manifestly unjust,” it observed, adding that motive alone cannot justify a murder charge.

Charges were framed against the two remaining accused.