'Blood from man or animal?': Delhi court raises questions over evidences, acquits 3 in attempt to murder case

The court was hearing the case against Faeem Kureshi, Naeem Kureshi and Hanif Khan, who were accused of allegedly entering the complainant Aslam’s house on October 18, 2017, and thrashing him.

New Delhi: A Delhi court has acquitted three men in a 2017 attempt to murder case, highlighting serious doubts over the investigation that could not be brushed aside.

Additional Sessions Judge Atul Ahlawat said the motive as an essential element of crime, based on the injured eyewitness' version, was a "double-edged sword" which could also be used to falsely implicate the accused.

The court was hearing the case against Faeem Kureshi, Naeem Kureshi and Hanif Khan, who were accused of allegedly entering complainant Aslam’s house on October 18, 2017, and thrashing him.

During the incident, Faeem also fired upon Aslam, the prosecution said.

In the 72-page verdict pronounced on October 9, the court noted Aslam's statement according to which his brother Shakil had reached the spot after he was fired at, but underlined some "improvements" in his testimony, where he claimed to have witnessed the entire incident, including the scuffle and Faeem allegedly shooting Aslam.

Calling it a "blow to the prosecution's case", the court noted the absence of bullet holes on Aslam's trousers, which was never sent for forensic analysis.

The court observed neither the alleged weapon of crime was recovered nor the bullets were found on the crime scene and even the blood samples collected from the spot weren't analysed.

"Therefore, it could not be established whether the blood allegedly recovered from the scene of crime pertained to the injured or not. It could not even be established in the present case, that the said blood pertained to a human being or an animal," the judge's verdict underlined.

The court further took into account the view of the doctor who treated Aslam not ruling out the possibility of self-infliction of the injuries.

"In the present case, there are serious doubts about the investigation, which cannot be brushed aside," it added.

Regarding the motive of previous enmity between the complainant and the accused, the court said motive alone was insufficient.

It said, "Motive in itself is a double-edged sword. In cases which are based upon circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important role, however, not of so much importance in cases based on eyewitness evidence." The court also observed several lapses in the investigation, including the testimony of the person who called the police helpline number not being recorded; police witness' testimony being "highly dubious and suspicious" and handwriting mismatches in the submitted documents.

"Therefore, it does not inspire any confidence and the possibility of the accused persons being falsely implicated in the present case cannot be ruled out,” the court said.