Delhi court gives two men benefit of doubt in attempt to murder case

A Delhi court acquitted Mustkeem and Javed in a 2015 assault case, citing insufficient evidence and missing CCTV footage. Mustkeem was also cleared of molestation, stalking and criminal intimidation charges after the prosecution failed to establish the allegations beyond reasonable doubt

New Delhi: A Delhi court has acquitted two men of attempt to murder charges in a 2015 case, observing that the prosecution failed to establish their involvement beyond reasonable doubt and that the absence of CCTV footage left crucial questions about the assault unanswered.

Additional Sessions Judge Munish Bansal acquitted Mustkeem and Javed of charges under Section 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Mustkeem was also acquitted of charges of molestation, stalking and criminal intimidation.

---

In an order dated October 28, the court said, “The general and uncorroborated testimony of one interested witness is not sufficient to hold that accused Mustkeem caused hurt to Haider Ali. In a case where two views are reasonably possible on the evidence, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted. Accused Mustkeen is entitled to the benefit of doubt.”

The case arose from a complaint by a woman who alleged that on October 4, 2015, Mustkeem had been following her for several days and caught her hand near Sharda Public School in northeast Delhi, asking her to listen to him. She alleged that he abused her when she tried to free herself.

The woman then informed her brother-in-law, Haider Ali, who allegedly confronted Mustkeem. The prosecution claimed that Mustkeem and two or three other men assaulted Haider, causing a head injury.

However, the court noted that Haider died in September 2020 before he could testify. The woman’s husband was not an eyewitness, while another witness admitted that he had not seen the assault and was relying on what Haider had told him.

The judge also pointed out that the prosecution had failed to collect CCTV footage, despite the complainant acknowledging that cameras were installed near and outside the school. The footage, the court observed, could have been the best independent evidence to establish who did what during the incident.

On the molestation and stalking charges, the court said the complainant’s testimony did not establish that Mustkeem had used criminal force against her or repeatedly followed her despite her disinterest. It also found no substantive evidence to support the criminal intimidation charge.

“This allegation appears only in the statement; the prosecution witness (PW-1) said nothing about any threat in her deposition and the Learned Additional PP did not put any such question to her in cross-examination. There is no substantive evidence of criminal intimidation,” the judge said.

The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against either accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted them.