New Delhi, A Delhi court has acquitted two men accused of murdering their co-worker in 2016, saying that the prosecution case rested on "strong suspicion" and there was no reliable and convincing evidence to establish their guilt.
Additional Sessions Judge Harvinder Singh was hearing a case against the two men in connection to the death of a stabbing near Mandoli Jail 10 years ago.
In an order dated August 25, the court said, "The case of prosecution at best remains in the realm of strong suspicion against them to be responsible for the death of the deceased. It is trite law that moral conviction howsoever strong cannot take the place of jural conviction based upon reliable and convincing evidence."
The court was hearing a case relating to the death of Shahnawaj who was allegedly stabbed on October 28, 2016.
The prosecution alleged that Azeem and Nadeem had conspired to kill Shahnawaj following friction between Nadeem and the deceased over a woman. It also relied on an alleged oral dying declaration made by Shahnawaj to a CATS ambulance official while being taken to GTB Hospital.
However, the court found the alleged dying declaration doubtful. It noted that the ambulance official, the prosecution's key witness, did not tell doctors, the duty constable, the police, or the deceased's family about the alleged disclosure and his statement was recorded by the investigating officer nearly a month after the incident.
{{/usCountry}}However, the court found the alleged dying declaration doubtful. It noted that the ambulance official, the prosecution's key witness, did not tell doctors, the duty constable, the police, or the deceased's family about the alleged disclosure and his statement was recorded by the investigating officer nearly a month after the incident.
{{/usCountry}}The court also noted that Shahnawaj was admitted to a hospital in a "gasping state" and was declared unfit to make a statement. Public witnesses who reached the spot had also said that he was unable to speak or was unconscious.
The judge further noted that there was no eyewitness to the incident, the alleged murder weapon was never recovered and forensic examination did not connect the accused with the death. A witness who initially identified Azeem later said he had identified him at the instance of police.
The court also found the prosecution's case regarding the motive weak as the woman allegedly at the centre of the dispute did not support the prosecution's version.
"In totality of circumstances," the court held, the evidence was insufficient to convict the accused and the case "at best remains in the realm of strong suspicion" against them.
The court emphasised that "moral conviction howsoever strong cannot take place of jural conviction based upon reliable and convincing evidence" and gave both accused the benefit of doubt.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.