E-Paper
Delhi court acquits three in 2017 Rajouri Garden shooting case as victim turns hostile
Delhi court acquits three in 2017 Rajouri Garden shooting case as victim turns hostile
Prefer HTon Google
New Delhi, A Delhi court has acquitted three individuals accused of shooting a man in west Delhi in 2017, saying the prosecution failed to prove their presence at the crime scene or their involvement in the offence.
Additional Sessions Judge Pooja Talwar was hearing a case against Mohd Guddu, Ram alias Vicky and Lakhan Mahawar alias Golu, and said that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
In an order dated October 6, the court said, "In light of the discussion above, in my considered view, the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the accused persons were present at the place of incident or committed the alleged offence."
According to the prosecution, Sameer Khan was attacked on June 22, 2017, near the Municipal Corporation of Delhi office in Subhash Nagar. He had said in his statement to police that Guddu suspected him of being a police informer. He also said that the accused beat him and Guddu shot him.
A case was registered at Rajouri Garden police station.
Guddu and Ram were charged with attempt to murder and common intention. Guddu was also charged under the Arms Act.
Lakhan, who was arrested in 2025, was charged under the corresponding Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita provisions and for failing to appear before the court after being declared a proclaimed offender.
During the trial, however, Sameer Khan, the complainant and the prosecution's main witness, did not support the case. He admitted his thumb impression on the complaint but denied its contents, saying he did not see the faces of the attackers.
Sameer Khan claimed that the police had taken his thumb impressions on blank papers. He said he had been shown a photograph of Lakhan before identifying him in a jail identification parade.
Two public witnesses, who had called the police after the injured man sought help, told the court they had not seen the incident.
The court noted that doctors could not give an opinion on the nature of the injury as the victim had left the hospital. Even if the intention and injury were assumed to be proved, it said, the question remained whether the act could be attributed to the accused.
"There is neither any ocular nor any documentary or forensic evidence to connect the accused persons with the offence," the court observed.
The court also acquitted Lakhan of the charge of non-appearance after proclamation, saying the process was not properly executed.
The court concluded that the prosecution had "miserably failed" to prove the accused were present at the scene or committed the offence.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
