A Delhi court on Wednesday acquitted Ghazipur MP Afzal Ansari of the Bahujan Samaj Party, his brother and Uttar Pradesh MLA of the party Mukhtar Ansari and others in the BJP MLA Krishnanand Rai murder case of 2005 as all the eyewitnesses turned hostile.
Besides the politician, six persons were also killed in the firing on the vehicle in which they were travelling.
“This is a gruesome case involving murder of seven persons. The investigation of the case was transferred from U.P. Police to CBI. The trial of the case was also transferred from U.P. to Delhi. Unfortunately, the case of the prosecution has suffered as all the eyewitnesses and other material witnesses turned hostile,” Special Judge Arun Bhardwaj said.
Gangster Munna Bajrangi was also an accused in the case. He was killed during trial of the case in Baghpat jail in Uttar Pradesh last year.
The CBI alleged that the enmity between Rai and Mr. Afzal Ansari began following the defeat of latter at the hands of the former in the Mohammadabad Assembly constituency in 2002.
Dismissing the charge, the judge said: “This court is of the view that when a contestant loses Assembly elections, it will not result in enmity of such a nature and enormity that he will think of murdering his opponent who has defeated him.”
“Moreover, this defeat of Afzal Ansari in legislative elections in 2002 become a blessing in disguise in as much as he won the election of Member of Parliament from Ghazipur constituency in 2004,” the judge said.
“This is one strange case where the prosecution has set out its case of conspiracy in the broad daylight and in the presence of 1,000-2,000 people including police, supporters and correspondents.”
‘No reliable evidence’
“In this case, there is no shred of evidence which is reliable for proving conspiracy alleged against Afzal Ansari,” the judge stated.
“In the end, the prosecution has not proved the charges framed against Azaz-Ul-Haq, Afzal Ansari, Mukhtar Ansari, Sanjeev Maheshwari@Jeeva, Rakesh Pandey, Ramu Mallah and Mansoor Ansari. They are, therefore, acquitted of the charges framed against them,’’ the judgment said.
The 478-page judgment concluded with the observation that “the case is another example of prosecution failing due to hostile witnesses. If the witnesses in this case had the benefit of the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, during trial, the result may have been different.”
