The court said that the prosecution could not prove the allegations. (Representational)
A Delhi Court has acquitted a man accused of abusing and threatening to kill Prime Minister Modi. The court acquitted the accused giving him the benefit of doubt. The court said that the prosecution could not prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. The court raised serious questions about the manner the investigation was conducted and the non-joining of public witnesses.
Metropolitan Magistrate Shubham Devadiya of Tis Hazari Court acquitted Mohd. Mukhtar from the offence of threat to kill PM giving the benefit of the doubt.
A case was registered at Police Station Anand Parbat under sections related to using abusive language and threats in January 2019.
The judge said, " this Court is of the opinion that the Prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly, accused Mohd. Mukhtar Ali stands acquitted of charge u/s 506(II) IPC."
The Court noted that the whole case of the Prosecution that a call was received from a mobile number at the police control room wherein statements in the form of threats to kill PM Modi was made by the accused does not appear to be reliable.
The court also noted that ASI Raj Kumar has clearly stated that he implicated the present accused after he called at the above-said number and the receiver of the above-said number, who is the brother of the accused, led him to the discovery of the present accused shows the callous way of investigating the present case and does not inspire much confidence in the Prosecution story.
Accordingly, this Court finds that the Prosecution has miserably failed to bring on record any evidence which could have shown or proved any statement in the form of threats to kill anyone has ever been made, the judge said in the judgement.
The court also said that the perusal of all the evidence led by the prosecution as well as the defence put by the Legal Aid Counsel (LAC), this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring on record any evidence which could have shown that the offence of Section 506(II) IPC has been committed by the accused.
The General Diary (GD) entry is the only piece of evidence that substantiates the allegations put forth by the prosecution, however, the perusal of the GD entry reflects that it is handwritten and in the absence of PCR form the evidentiary value of the said GD entry is feeble in nature, the court added.
Moreover, the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of Section 506(II) IPC as the prosecution has not been able to show the intention of the accused to cause alarm to the victim, the court noted.
The court also referred to the decision of the High Court of Delhi wherein it held that mere bald and general assertions of threats to kill anyone are not sufficient in themselves to bring a case under Section 506(II) IPC.
The court said that the prosecution has failed to prove that any serious effort was made by recovery witnesses who were police officials to join public witnesses in the proceedings.
From a perusal of the record, no serious effort for joining public witnesses appears to have been made. Section 100 (4) of the CrPC also casts a statutory duty on an official conducting a search to join two respectable persons of the society, the court said.
Further, there is nothing on record to show that recovery witnesses/police officials had served any notice upon the persons who refused to join the investigation, it added
The court observed, "Joining independent witnesses would have given credibility to the recovery proceeding. Therefore, non-joining of independent witness casts a doubt on the fairness of the investigation."
This Court is, however, conscious that the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on the sole ground of non-joining of public witnesses as public witnesses keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable, the court said.
"However, in the present case, it is not only the absence of public witnesses which raises a doubt on the prosecution but there are other circumstances too, as discussed hereinafter, which raise suspicion over the prosecution version, " the court observed.
The facts of the case are that on 17.01.2019 at 11:00 AM, the accused used abusive language and threatened to kill PM Modi. FIR was registered under Section 506(II) IPC.
After the completion of the investigation chargesheet was filed in the Court. The cognizance of the offence was taken and a summon was issued to the accused.
The charge was framed against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 506(II) IPC on 28.09.2022 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)