Karan vs State ( Nct Of Delhi) on 27 May, 2016

2. Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the conviction states
that both Raju and Shalu PW-1 and PW-2, the public witnesses have not
supported the prosecution case as both stated that they did not see who
stabbed Aakash. As per PW-1 neither he witnessed the stabbing nor his
brother PW-2 as he was not present at the shop. Even PW-2 reiterates that
he did not see the person who stabbed. Sameer PW-3 who supported the
case of the prosecution in examination-in-chief could not withstand the
cross-examination and admitted that there were 4-5 persons and he did not
know who stabbed Aakash. Sameer PW-3 is not an eye-witness which is
apparent from the fact that he said that Aakash was stabbed twice whereas in
the MLC only one stab injury was noted. Even as per the statement of
Aakash, on the basis of which FIR was registered, the stab injury is not
attributed to Karan. This version of Aakash is also fortified by the fact that
for 5 months no action was taken by the Police. Only after the death of
Aakash, Section 304 IPC was added to the investigation and Karan was
arrested. PW-2 categorically stated that even after the incident Karan
continued having regular meals at their hotel. The alleged weapon of
offence has not been recovered. Hence Karan is entitled to be acquitted.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply

*