NEW DELHI: A Delhi court has acquitted a man in a 2011 murder case, saying the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt after key witnesses turned hostile and forensic evidence did not support the case.
However, the court convicted him of escape after he confessed to committing the crime.
Additional Sessions Judge Vandana was hearing the case against Amit Kumar, accused of murdering property kingpin Ranbir Singh, who was shot dead in Bawana’s Puth Khurd area in June 2011.
An FIR has been registered against the accused under Sections 302 and 120B of the IPC and Arms Act.
“There is no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, the accused Amit Kumar deserves the benefit of doubt and is therefore acquitted,” the court said in the order dated July 14.
The court noted that the complainant and other key witnesses did not support the prosecution during the trial and were unable to identify the accused.
She also said that the ballistics report did not link the gun that was found to the bullets that were found in the body of the deceased.
“Even through forensic evidence, no evidence can be proven incriminating the accused as discussed above. There is no CCTV footage or any independent public person who might have been present at the time of the incident or even at the time of the alleged recovery of the weapon,” the judge said.
The judge also noted that the investigation suffered from several flaws, including a failure to collect CCTV footage or involve independent public witnesses even though the incident occurred in broad daylight.
Inconsistencies were also found in the testimonies of police witnesses regarding the alleged recovery of the weapon.
Since the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the court extended him the benefit of the doubt and acquitted him of the murder and related charges.
However, the court convicted Amit Kumar under Section 174A of the IPC after registering his guilty plea to the charge of absconding despite the declaration issued by the court.
This article was generated from an automated news feed without any modifications to the text.
