A Delhi court has acquitted three men accused of shooting a man in west Delhi in 2017, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish their involvement in the crime beyond reasonable doubt. The decision came after the complainant and key prosecution witness, Sameer Khan, did not support the allegations during the trial.
Additional Sessions Judge Pooja Talwar acquitted Mohd Guddu, Ram alias Vicky and Lakhan Mahawar alias Golu in an order dated October 6. The court observed that there was no sufficient evidence to establish that the accused were present at the crime scene or had committed the alleged offence.
According to the prosecution, Sameer Khan was attacked on June 22, 2017, near the Municipal Corporation of Delhi office in Subhash Nagar. In his initial statement to the police, Khan had alleged that Guddu suspected him of being a police informer. He claimed that the accused assaulted him and that Guddu subsequently shot him. A case was registered at Rajouri Garden police station.
Guddu and Ram faced charges of attempt to murder and common intention, while Guddu was also charged under the Arms Act. Lakhan, who was arrested in 2025, faced charges under the corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and for failing to appear before the court after being declared a proclaimed offender.
However, during the trial, Khan denied the contents of his original complaint, although he acknowledged his thumb impression on the document. He told the court that he had not seen the attackers' faces and alleged that the police had obtained his thumb impressions on blank papers. He also claimed that he had been shown Lakhan's photograph before identifying him during a jail identification parade.
Two other public witnesses, who had reportedly called the police after the injured man sought help, told the court that they had not witnessed the shooting.
The court further noted that doctors could not determine the nature of the injuries because the victim had left the hospital. It said that even if the injury and intention were assumed to have been established, the prosecution still needed to prove that the accused were responsible.
The judge observed that there was no eyewitness, documentary or forensic evidence connecting the three men to the offence. The court also acquitted Lakhan of the charge relating to non-appearance after proclamation, finding that the required legal process had not been properly executed.
Concluding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case, the court acquitted all three accused.
Reader Comments 0