Noida: A man identified in court the person he said had killed his mother during a snatching bid, testifying that the accused and his accomplice had met his father the day after the attack to demand payment for the job. But 24 years later, the three were acquitted. The court noted that the son’s testimony contradicted his own earlier statement to police. It also found the recovery of an alleged country-made pistol and cartridges doubtful as the bullet recovered from the victim’s body was not produced as evidence.The additional sessions court acquitted Rajkumar, husband of the deceased Pinki and the original complainant in the case, along with co-accused Shahzad and Nazir alias Nazim alias Yashveer, noting serious lapses in the prosecution’s case and gaps in the investigation.According to the FIR lodged by Rajkumar with Sector 39 police, his wife Pinki and son Rahul had gone to a bank to withdraw money on June 25, 2002. On their way back, four unidentified youths intercepted their Omni van and attempted to snatch the cash. When the family resisted, one of the men fired at close range, fatally wounding Pinki, who died at Kailash Hospital. Police registered a case under Sections 302 (murder) and 394 (voluntarily causing hurt while attempting robbery) IPC against unknown persons.After investigation, however, police named Rajkumar himself as the main conspirator, along with Indrajeet, Shahzad and Nazir. All were arrested on June 30. Police claimed to have recovered the pistol used in the killing. Three separate cases, for murder, conspiracy and Arms Act violations, were registered and later clubbed into one for trial. The court framed charges under Section 302 read with 120B IPC (criminal conspiracy) against Rajkumar and Shahzad, and under Sections 394, 302, 120B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act against Nazir, while discharging Indrajeet.The prosecution presented 10 witnesses, including the deceased’s son Rahul and daughter Priyanka. Rahul corroborated the FIR and testified that his father used to physically and mentally abuse his mother and had a history of drinking and gambling. Identifying Nazir in the courtroom as the man who had fired at his mother, Rahul told the court that a day after the incident, Nazir had come to their home with co-accused Shahzad to meet his father. “We have executed your wife as per your order, so you should give us the remaining amount,” Rahul quoted Nazir as saying.While Rahul’s statement was recorded in 2005, the investigating officer (IO), retired inspector Sunil Kumar, testified only in 2022. During cross-examination, the IO admitted that Rahul’s 2005 statement had not been recorded during the investigation.The court also noted that despite the presiding officer’s efforts and repeated opportunities, the IO had failed to produce the bullet recovered from Pinki’s body during autopsy. “The bullet recovered from the deceased’s body was not presented as evidence. There is no forensic laboratory report to prove that it was fired from the pistol allegedly recovered, or that the country-made pistol was in working condition,” the court held, adding that this made the recovery of the weapon and cartridges from Nazir “completely doubtful”.Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam (2013), judge Sunil Kumar-1 held that however strong the suspicion, it cannot substitute for evidence in a sessions trial. The prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charges against all three accused, the court said, and they were entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The court ordered each of the acquitted persons to execute a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with one surety of the like amount, in compliance with Section 437A of the CrPC.
