Delhi’s Tis Hazari Court recently acquitted an accused of murder giving the benefit of the doubt in view of the shoddy investigation and unreliable statement of the parents of the deceased.
Above all, the court noted that the eye witness did not support the case of the prosecution and even denied being an eyewitness to the incident.
The court also noted that the police did not take the fingerprint of the accused from the weapon of the crime. This case is related to a murder of a boy in Ranhola in May 2016.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Shivali said the case of the prosecution is primarily based on the eyewitness account given by complainant Govinda, who has been examined.
“It is clear on the record that Govinda has not supported the case of the prosecution despite lengthy cross-examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, ” the judge said.
The court said, “He has not only denied being an eye witness to the murder of deceased Manjeet but has also denied being in the company of deceased Manjeet and accused
Shivam prior to the death of Manjeet.”
“I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove on record the offences charged against accused Shivam beyond any reasonable doubt,” ASJ Shivali Sharma said.
“The evidence on record is highly insufficient for convicting the accused Shivam for the offences charged,” the court observed.
Accused Shivam is, accordingly, acquitted for the offences charged against him giving him the benefit of the doubt, the court ordered on April 29.
The court also said the investigation was shoddy in the case and chance prints were taken during the investigation.
“In addition to this, the investigation in the present case has been highly shoddy. No chance prints have been lifted from the spot or from the silver foil allegedly used for consuming smack by accused Shivam and recovered from the spot,” the judge pointed out.
The court added, ” There is no direct evidence on record to show the presence of accused Shivam at the place of murder of deceased Manjeet at the time of the incident.”
The chain of circumstances put forth by the prosecution is neither duly established on record nor is complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused, the court said in the judgement.
The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, even if proved, do not lead to the only
conclusion that accused Shivam had committed the murder of the deceased Manjeet, the court further said.
The court also termed the testimonies of the parents of the deceased as unreliable. They had said that the accused had accompanied their son Manjeet on the date of the murder on May 14, 2016.
“Accordingly, the last seen evidence that has come on record by way of testimonies of Mahendra Yadav and Meena Devi is highly unbelievable and cannot be relied upon for convicting accused Shivam for the offence charged against him,” the court said.
“In addition to this, there is no clear evidence on record that the recovered knife has been used for committing the murder of the deceased, Manjeet,” it said.
The court observed, “There is only an opinion of autopsy surgeon to the effect that
the injuries sustained by the deceased could have been caused by the recovered knife or any other similar weapon.”
“The blood stains found on the recovered knife have not been connected to deceased Manjeet as is apparent from the FSL report,” the court added.
“Moreover, the recovered knife has not been tested for any fingerprints in order to connect the same with accused Shivam,” the court said.
“In these circumstances, the evidence on record is highly insufficient to hold that
it was accused Shivam who had used the recovered blood-stained knife to commit the murder of deceased Manjeet, ” the judge observed.
Although, this is a possibility there are several other possibilities and this possibility had not been proved on record beyond any reasonable doubt to rule out the existence of any other possibility,” the judge added.
The prosecution’s case against the accused, Shivam, was that on May 14, 2016, around 2 pm by the side of ganda nala in front of Raj Yog Sainik Farm Enclave, Delhi, he murdered one Manjeet with a knife and criminally intimated the complainant/eye witness Govinda not to disclose about the incident to any person as otherwise, he would kill him as well.
He was also found in possession of a button-actuated knife having a blade length of 4.3 cm without any permit or license which he used for committing the murder of Manjeet.
It was argued by advocate Deepak Sharma, counsel for the accused, that the alleged eye witness to the entire incident i.e. complainant Govinda has not supported the case of the prosecution and has in fact denied being an eye witness to the alleged incident.
“Rather, in his deposition as a prosecution witness, Govinda has blamed the police officials/
investigating authority to have falsely shown him to be an eye witness to the alleged incident of murder of Manjeet,” the counsel submitted.
“The involvement of ASI Rajender Singh in the present case is also clouded with doubt as at the relevant time, he was not posted at Police Station Ranhola and was rather posted at Police Station Vikaspuri which had nothing to do with the present case,” Advocate Sharma argued.