Delhi court acquits three in 2020 attempt to murder case after complainant fails to identify accused

A Delhi court has acquitted three men accused of attempting to murder a shop owner in 2020, saying that the prosecution failed to establish their identity as the assailants beyond a reasonable doubt after the complainant turned hostile and did not identify any of them.

Additional Sessions Judge Samar Vishal was hearing the case against Sunil alias Bhuri, Dheeraj and Bhupender of charges under IPC Sections 307 (attempt to murder) and 34 (common intention) in connection with a firing incident in Sangam Vihar on July 24, 2020.

In an order dated June 9, the court said, “It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. The prosecution must stand on its own legs and prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.”

According to the prosecution, the accused had earlier quarrelled with complainant Navin Kumar after he refused to supply clothes without payment. It alleged that the trio later pelted stones at his shop and Sunil fired at him with a country-made pistol with the intention to kill him before fleeing on a motorcycle.

During the trial, however, Kumar testified that he had not witnessed the firing and only came out after hearing commotion. He told the court that the public informed him about the incident and categorically said that he had never seen the accused before. He also denied making allegations against them before the police or identifying them during the investigation.

“The complainant has failed to identify the accused persons. There is no independent eyewitness. There is no Test Identification Parade (TIP).

“There is no CCTV footage. There is no other circumstantial evidence connecting the accused persons with the occurrence,” the court said.

The judge noted that no independent public witness was examined despite the presence of several people at the spot, no TIP was conducted and there was no CCTV footage or other circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime.

“The evidence furnished by him (complainant) is therefore largely hearsay in nature and cannot be treated as proof of the identity of the offenders,” the court said.

The court also held that the alleged recovery of a country-made pistol from Sunil in a separate Arms Act case could not establish his involvement in the present case.

“Mere possession of a firearm by an accused in another case cannot establish his involvement in the offence alleged in the present FIR,” the judge said.

Observing that “suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof”, the court said the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sunil fired at the complainant or that Dheeraj and Bhupender participated in the alleged offence, and extended them the benefit of doubt.

It then acquitted all three accused of all charges framed against them.