The court absolved the accused of the offences of attempt to murder and assault on public servant to deter him from discharge of duty under the IPC and provisions of the Arms Act, noting that the fired bullet could not be recovered which was a "serious flaw" on the part of the prosecution.
"The fired lead could not be recovered. This is a serious flaw on the part of the prosecution as the same would have proved that it was fired from the pistol allegedly recovered from possession of the accused which also casts doubt on the prosecution story as a whole," Additional Sessions Judge Sanjeev Aggarwal said.
"In the present case, the incident is of the year 2012. At that time, mobile phones were freely available and were possessed by all common people including police officials.
"In the present case, the best way for the prosecution to prove the location of crime was to prove the CDRs (call detail record) of all members of the police party at the relevant time to show their location at the place of the incident which could have clearly proved their presence at the spot and would have duly corroborated the prosecution story regarding the time, place and manner of incident," it said.
It further noted that no scientific investigations have been carried out by the Investigating Officer "for reasons best known to him despite the availability of scientific evidence in the shape of gunshot residue test, finger prints and evidence that the fired lead was discharged from the weapon found in the possession of accused."
According to the prosecution, a team of police officials had gathered to arrest the accused in a separate robbery case on January 20, 2012 when one of the accused fired gunshots at one policeman, injuring him while the other accused allegedly tried to attack a cop with a knife.
Denying the allegations levelled against them, the accused claimed they were falsely implicated by the police.
The court while acquitting them, said, "The prosecution evidence as a whole is not trustworthy, therefore, it is not safe to convict the accused persons on such kind of evidence.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
