Delhi court acquits two in businessman’s murder: Pistol appears planted

Additional Sessions Judge Gorakh Nath Pandey, while acquitting the two accused, said: “The recovery of the country-made pistols appears to be false and planted in view of doubtful features and infirmities in prosecution evidence. It is not safe to rely merely upon the testimony of the police officer, whose evidence needs to be scrutinised with great care and caution. There are fatal infirmities in the entire prosecution case and the entire genesis and the manner of the incident is doubtful, and the entire story deserves to be rejected.”

“As the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, accused Mohit Chhabra and Krishan Antil are acquitted of all charges levelled against them in these cases. They be released from judicial custody forthwith, if not required in any other case,” the court said. Two other men accused in the murder case have been declared proclaimed offenders by the court.

When the woman deposed before the court, she had said she heard Mohit hurling abuses. She also told the court she spoke to the star prosecution witness over the phone.

As per court records, the woman claimed that after hearing the shooting, she tried to talk to her husband, who did not answer. She then called her relatives, and the prosecution witness had informed them about the shooting. However, during his deposition, the prosecution witness told the court that he spoke to the woman about the shooting at the hospital.

“The claim of the witness (woman) regarding the conversation with the deceased and hearing of the live noise of firing is contrary to the claim of PW1 (the star witness), who informed regarding the incident to the witness in the nursing some,” the court said.

The court also held that the conduct of another witness and the nephew of the victim is “totally in contradiction to the act of a reasonable man”.

The nephew had deposed that he had witnessed the incident while he was returning after distributing a wedding invitation, but did not raise a hue and cry, inform police or accompany the victim to the hospital, said the court.