New Delhi, Feb 4 (PTI) A Delhi court has acquitted three members of a family who were accused of assault and an acid attack arising out of a property dispute, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Additional Sessions Judge Pooja Talwar acquitted Mridul, Rajni and Yashpal of the charges under sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and also acquitted Yashpal of the charge under section 326B (voluntarily throwing acid on any person with the intent to cause damage).
“The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond a reasonable doubt,” the court said in its judgment dated January 30, granting them the benefit of the doubt.
According to the prosecution, on the morning of November 5, 2015, the complainant’s brothers, Sohan Lal and Yashpal, were arguing with her sister-in-law, Yogmaya, about a drainage issue when suddenly, Sohan Lal, Yashpal and Chokhe Lal entered her room and started assaulting her and her husband, Jeeta Prasad, over a property dispute.
When Prasad tried to leave, the complainant’s brothers and her sisters-in-law, Rajni and Mridul, restrained him and assaulted him further. Yashpal allegedly threw acid on him and the liquid spilled on the floor, the complaint had said.
The court noted that the alleged incident took place on November 5, 2015, but the FIR was registered only on November 21, 2015, and found the explanation for the delay unconvincing.
“In case the version given by the complainant is to be believed, then why she made a complaint after two weeks of the incident stands unexplained,” the court observed.
“It is undisputed that both the parties are at loggerheads owing to the property dispute. In order to hold the accused persons guilty, the testimonies of the complainant and her husband will be required to be scrutinised minutely,” it added.
The court raised questions about the prosecution’s story as it noted that “on one hand, the accused persons were fighting amongst themselves and the very next moment, they all gang up against the complainant and her husband without any reason and provocation. The aforesaid story appears to be untenable and untrustworthy”.
A cross-FIR was also filed against Prasad on allegations made by accused Rajni.
The court also noted that there was no cogent proof of the complainant residing at the alleged site of the incident and both the complainant and her husband gave contrary statements about their place of residence.
“In order to prove the offence under section 323, IPC, the prosecution was required to prove the presence of the complainant and her husband at the alleged place of incident and only the simple injuries mentioned in the MLC would not suffice,” the court observed.
The judge found material contradictions in the testimonies of the complainant and her husband on whether Prasad was restrained by all the accused or only one of them. Prasad had failed to mention that he was wrongfully restrained during his examination-in-chief and only conceded to the suggestion after the additional public prosecutor mentioned it.
“Moreover, he did not even take a plea that due to the lapse of time, he had forgotten certain facts,” the court said, acquitting the accused of wrongful restraint.
The court also highlighted material contradictions in the testimonies of the complainant and her husband regarding whether acid was thrown on him or it merely fell on the floor. The medicolegal case (MLC) of the husband did not show any burn injuries as alleged by the complainant and his clothes allegedly damaged by acid were not seized by police. The court further noted that the crime team did not find any traces of acid at the crime scene.
“In case no traces of acid were found by the crime team in-charge, then how the investigating officer lifted the same stands unexplained. The story of acid being thrown by accused Yashpal even otherwise appears to be concocted as in the complaint, the fact of acid being thrown appears to be mentioned later on, in the end,” the court said.
“It is human psychology to be terrified with the name of acid itself and in case someone is assaulted with acid, then it is very unlikely that the said fact would be mentioned as a passing reference in the complaint. Rather the same would have been the first thing to be mentioned,” it added.
“Insofar as the offence under section 326B, IPC, is concerned, it has been discussed in detail above that the prosecution miserably failed to prove that there was acid on the floor or that the same was thrown on Jeeta Prasad,” the court said while acquitting the accused.
Two other accused in the case, Sohan Lal and Chokhe Lal, died during the pendency of the trial and the proceedings against them had already abated. PTI MDB RC
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.