The Delhi High Court has acquitted two persons of murder, five years after they were arrested, after noting discrepancies in the report by the investigating officer.
A Bench of Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice I. S. Mehta pointed out that the report paid “extensive reliance on the eyewitness’s testimonies and did not pay attention to the corroborating evidence”.
The case relates to a murder of a man at Chameli Park, near Raghubir Nagar, on November 19, 2013. The head of the victim was found partially crushed.
The main witness in the case was the grandmother of the deceased, who at the time of her deposition was about 75 years of age.
She had stated that on the fateful day around 5 a.m., she noticed her grandson being forcibly pushed into a rickshaw by the two accused — Prahalad and Devanand.
She claimed that she followed the rickshaw from Ghorewala Mandir to Chameli Park. When she reached the park, she saw the accused beating the victim with a big stone and a wooden stick.
Beaten with stone
A blow from the stone crushed the victim’s head and blood spurted onto the accused. The grandmother said she screamed and the accused fled. She said that she then ran back home.
The woman had said that once she regained control of herself, she went back to Chameli Park around 8 a.m. by which time the police had arrived. She then identified her grandson’s body and gave an account of what happened to the investigating officer.
Witness account suspect
The High Court, however, pointed out that she had in her statement before the magistrate claimed to have gone to the police station with other people from the locality and lodged a report.
Noting that a woman of her age could not possibly follow a rickshaw on foot, the court said: “It would be safe to conclude that these inconsistencies and contradictions were material enough to discredit her testimony”.
The court also raised questions on the way the two accused were arrested on the same day. “Why they would continue wearing those trousers and be waiting around to be arrested from an open parking space in the vicinity has not been explained at all,” the Bench remarked.
“Suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot substitute proof,” the Bench stated while acquitting the duo.
