The Delhi High Court has acquitted a man in a murder case on grounds of inconsistencies in the evidence of the parents of the victim and the failure of the prosecution to prove the motive of the crime committed at Bhajanpura in North-East Delhi in 1994.
According to the prosecution, the accused had stabbed the victim, Anil Kumar Goswami, to death when he was going to open the clinic of his father.
He used to help his doctor father in the treatment of patients visiting there. His body was found in a sitting position on a three-wheeler near his house.
The prosecution case was that the accused had murdered the victim as the condition of the niece of the former had deteriorated following her treatment by the latter. Before murdering the victim, the accused had also threatened the father of the victim that if the condition of his niece did not improve he would face the consequences.
The accused was also enraged over the refusal by the father of the victim to visit his (accused) house to see his niece. Another motive for the murder put forward by the prosecution was that the victim was in love with the niece of the accused which the latter did not like.
However, the prosecution failed to prove the charge as well as its motive against the accused.
The allegation of threat by the accused to the victim's father was not proved as there was no registered case of the charge and also the prosecution failed to produce any independent witness in support of it. There were also inconsistencies in the evidence of the parents of the victim about the time the accused visited the clinic and threatened the victim's father; the father said that the accused had visited his clinic at 11 a.m., however, the mother mentioned the time of the visit of the accused at 3 p.m.
Further, the father of the victim in his statement had not mentioned the presence of his wife when the accused had threatened him.
The other motive for the crime -- the accused disliking his niece having a romantic relationship with the victim -- was also rejected by the Court as the greeting card sent by the girl to the victim and found on his body was not produced in the trial court by the prosecution.
The prosecution also failed to prove that the weapon of offence recovered from the accused was the same that was used to stab the victim.
Allowing the appeal by the accused, a Division Bench of the Court comprising Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice S.P. Garg said: “Considering the circumstances referred above, it stands established that there was no cogent, reliable, trustworthy material on record before the learned trial court to base its conviction on circumstance of motive and recovery of weapon of offence which the prosecution has miserably failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt.”