New Delhi, Oct 9 A Delhi court has acquitted three men accused of shooting a man in west Delhi in 2017, saying the prosecution failed to prove their presence at the crime scene or their involvement in the offence.
Additional Sessions Judge Pooja Talwar was hearing a case against Mohd. Guddu, Ram alias Vicky and Lakhan Mahawar alias Golu and said that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
In an October 6 order, the court said, "In light of the discussion above, in my considered view prosecution miserably failed to prove that the accused persons were present at the place of incident or committed the alleged offence."
According to the prosecution, Sameer Khan was attacked on June 22, 2017, near the MCD office in Subhash Nagar. He had said in his statement to police that Guddu suspected him of being a police informer, and that the accused beat him and Guddu shot him. A case was registered at Rajouri Garden police station.
Guddu and Ram were charged with attempt to murder and common intention. Guddu was also charged under the Arms Act. Lakhan, who was arrested only in 2025, was charged under the corresponding Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita provisions and for failing to appear before the court after being declared a proclaimed offender.
During the trial, however, Sameer Khan, the complainant and the prosecution’s main witness, did not support the case.
He admitted his thumb impression on the complaint but denied its contents, saying he did not see the faces of the attackers. He also claimed police had taken his thumb impressions on blank papers and asserted that he was shown a photograph of Lakhan before being made to identify him in a jail identification parade.
Two public witnesses, who had called police after the injured man sought help, told the court they had not seen the incident.
The court noted that doctors could not give an opinion on the nature of the injury as the victim had left the hospital. Even if intention and injury were assumed to be proved, it said, the question remained whether the act could be attributed to the accused.
"There is neither any ocular nor any documentary or forensic evidence to connect the accused persons with the offence," the court said, observing the prosecution had "miserably failed" to prove the accused were present at the scene or committed the offence.
The court also acquitted Lakhan of the charge of non-appearance after proclamation, saying the process was not properly executed.
