Court acquits all accused in murder case over hostile prosecution witnesses, poor investigation

Gurugram: A sessions and trial court acquitted all nine accused in a 2016 murder case in Kadarpur village, Gurugram after prosecution witnesses denied identifying those facing charges.

The court of additional district and session judge (ADJ) Jasbir Singh observed that facts of the case do not show that the police made any effort to join the independent witnesses at the time of recording the alleged disclosure statements (confessional statements) of the accused.

“Benefit of doubt is extended to the accused persons, and they are acquitted of the charge levelled against them,” the court observed in the final judgment.

Ashok Kumar, aka Sukka was shot multiple times around 9am on July 18, 2016, following a village quarrel.

An FIR was registered against unknown persons under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 302 (punishment for murder) and the Arms Act, after Ashok’s brother Jitender Kumar filed a complaint at Badshahpur police station.

There were 10 suspects accused in the chargesheet filed by police after investigation. One of them, Dharmender, died during the trial.

The primary accused were Rahul, Arun, Raj Kumar, and Dharmi who allegedly opened fire on Ashok. According to the order sheet, Ashok was rushed to a private hospital in Sector 51, where he was pronounced dead on arrival.

In the judgment delivered on May 27, ADJ Singh observed that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.

Part of the prosecution’s case was built in the fact that Jitender and Jasbir ( Ashok’s other brother) witnessed the quarrel.

However, during trial, Jitender deposed that he had not witnessed the incident. He also said that the accused did not cause any injury to his brother.

The court observed that official witnesses and their evidence were of formal and corroborative nature and were not sufficient to connect the accused with the charges.

It also pulled up the police, observing that there was a mechanical grant of sanction under the Arms Act by the joint commissioner. The sanction was made based on Rahul possessing two country made pistols and a live cartridge. Neither the firearms, nor the cartridge was produced before the authority while getting the sanction.