Delhi Court Acquits Accused Over Contradictory Witness Statements

A Delhi court acquitted Mohammad Akram, citing discrepancies in official testimonies regarding a 2016 incident where his accomplice allegedly fired upon police officers. The court noted the absence of crucial evidence, including a written complaint, as required by law, which rendered the trial void from the start.

A Delhi court has acquitted Mohammad Akram, whose accomplice was accused of firing on police officers in 2016, due to inconsistencies in the testimonies of two official witnesses. The ruling highlighted several discrepancies that weakened the prosecution's case.

Additional Sessions Judge Vishal Pahuja noted that the offence's cognisance was compromised by the absence of a mandatory written complaint. The court observed that crucial evidence was missing, like the non-recovery of an empty cartridge and the uncertainty of witness testimonies regarding key details, such as the motorbike's description.

The court emphasized that the law mandates a written complaint in such cases, underlining that the trial, from inception, was vitiated due to procedural non-compliance, ultimately leading to Akram's acquittal.

(With inputs from agencies.)