Delhi Court Clears Four Accused in Attempt to Murder Case Over Insufficient Proof
Judge says prosecution failed to establish charges beyond reasonable doubt after complainant did not testify before the court.
NEW DELHI, June 27: A Delhi court has acquitted four men accused in a 2017 attempt to murder case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its allegations beyond reasonable doubt. The court observed that the evidence presented during the trial was insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.
Additional Sessions Judge Dhirendra Rana passed the order while hearing the case against Parvej, Punit and Vinay, who had been charged under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including attempt to murder, voluntarily causing hurt, criminal intimidation, wrongful restraint and common intention.
According to the prosecution, the accused allegedly attacked the complainant, Amit, following an altercation on July 5, 2017, with the intention of causing fatal injuries. A criminal case was subsequently registered, and the matter proceeded to trial.
In its order dated June 8, the court reiterated the settled principle of criminal law that the burden of proving guilt lies entirely with the prosecution. It observed that unless the allegations are established beyond reasonable doubt, an accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
The judge noted that the complainant, who was also the injured party, failed to appear before the court despite being issued summons. As a result, the prosecution could not produce its key witness to support the allegations made in the chargesheet.
The court further observed that the remaining witnesses examined during the trial were official witnesses associated with the investigation. Their testimonies, it said, were procedural in nature and could not independently establish the alleged assault or the involvement of the accused.
Emphasising that suspicion alone cannot form the basis of a criminal conviction, the court said the prosecution had failed to bridge the gap between allegation and proof. It added that criminal courts are required to convict only when the evidence inspires confidence and establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Finding no legally sustainable evidence against the accused, the court acquitted all four, concluding that the prosecution had failed to substantiate the charges in accordance with the standard required under criminal law.
