Delhi court acquits two men in 2018 firing, robbery case

A Delhi court has acquitted two men accused of robbing and shooting a man at a metro station in 2018, saying the prosecution failed to establish their identity as assailants and could not scientifically link the recovered pistol to the firing.

Additional Sessions Judge Twinkle Wadhwa heard a case against Deepak alias Golu and Shanu alias Furkan, accused in a case registered at Karawal Nagar police station under various provisions of the IPC and the Arms Act.

In a September 28 order, the court said, “A hostile eyewitness who does not identify the accused, a doubtful recovery unsupported by independent or photographic evidence, and a forensic report that does not connect the recovered weapon to the offence, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The court noted that the complainant, Aas Mohd, was the only person who had witnessed the incident and there was no CCTV footage or other eyewitness to support the prosecution’s case. According to the prosecution, Aas Mohd went to Jawahar Nagar Metro Station on April 27, 2018, when three boys allegedly tried to snatch his mobile phone. When he resisted, one of them allegedly fired at him with a country-made pistol, injuring his right arm.

The prosecution claimed that police apprehended Deepak and Shanu the next day and the complainant identified them. Police subsequently recovered a country-made pistol at Shanu’s instance.

However, while appearing before the court, the complainant denied that the two accused were the assailants and also denied having identified them earlier.

“Since the only witness who could link the accused to the crime has not supported the prosecution’s case, the identification of the accused as the assailants stands unproved,” the court said.

The court also found the pistol’s recovery doubtful. It noted that the complainant’s signature appeared on the seizure memo, but he denied that the recovery took place in his presence or with his knowledge.

“Where the sole independent witness to a recovery disowns it, the evidence of police witnesses alone must be treated with caution, and cannot by itself be relied upon to establish the recovery,” the judge said.

The court said the recovery was supported only by police witnesses, and no photographs were taken at the recovery site or by any member of the public involved in the process, despite the alleged recovery taking place at a farmhouse in a populated area. The forensic evidence also failed to establish a link between the weapon and the shooting.

“The forensic examination does not establish that the cartridge found at the spot was actually fired from the pistol allegedly recovered from the accused. This missing link means that even if the recovery of the pistol were accepted, there is no scientific basis to connect that pistol to the shooting,” the court said.

The court concluded that the hostile eyewitness, doubtful weapon recovery and lack of forensic linkage meant the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.