New Delhi: A Delhi court recently acquitted a man whose accomplice was accused of firing upon policemen in 2016. The court of additional sessions judge Vishal Pahuja noted several material discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of two official witnesses.
“The prosecution has examined two witnesses, head constable Avnish Kumar and inspector Durga Das, to prove its case. A bare perusal of the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses reveals that there are several material discrepancies and contradictions which render their depositions highly unreliable and doubtful to be acted upon,” said the court.
The court also said that cognisance of the offences in the case was vitiated because of not complying with the mandatory procedure of filing a written complaint.
The court was hearing a case against Mohammad Akram, whose accomplice was accused of firing upon cops stationed on patrolling duty on Aug 25, 2016.
The Saket police station had registered an FIR against Akram and others. He was charged under various Indian Penal Code provisions, including sections 307 (attempt to murder) and 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of official duties). The co-accused in the case is still absconding.
According to the prosecution, Akram and others did not stop their bikes when asked by the patrolling officers. The accused’s associate, riding pillion, took out a country-made pistol and fired upon the cops while trying to escape.
The court noted that a doubt was created as no empty cartridge case was recovered. During cross-examination, a witness, Kumar, could not tell the registration number of the motorcycle, nor could he remember the make, model, or colour of the two-wheeler.
“Above all, Kumar stated that no wireless message was sent regarding the accused persons who fled from the spot. It is not believable on the part of the law enforcement agency that the message was not flashed on wireless…,” said the court.
The court, taking note of the allegation that Akram was found wearing a belt with six live cartridges, remarked, “It is very unusual and difficult to believe that a person is carrying live cartridges with him without possessing any pistol for firing the same.”
Further, the court said the non-joining of public witnesses further dented the prosecution’s case, and a site plan submitted by police failed to reveal the important material aspect regarding the position of police officers at the time of the incident.
