Delhi Court discharges key accused in Kishangarh firing case, finds no prima facie evidence

New Delhi [India], August 31 (ANI): The Patiala House Courts of Delhi discharged the main accused in a high-profile murder case, holding that there was no prima facie material to proceed against them.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Kiran Gupta, noted that apart from disclosure statements of co-accused, no independent evidence, such as call records, location details, or recoveries, was produced to substantiate the prosecution's claim that the accused were part of the conspiracy.
The case arose from an incident in which the complainant, while returning from Patiala House Court, was allegedly accosted by unknown assailants who fired at his car in broad daylight. During the incident, the driver, Shafiq, sustained injuries.
An FIR was subsequently registered at Police Station Kishangarh under Sections 307, 120-B, 201, 174-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 25, 27, 54, and 59 of the Arms Act.
During the investigation, several accused persons were arrested, and allegations of criminal conspiracy were raised against multiple individuals, including the discharged accused. The prosecution relied primarily on disclosure statements of co-accused and CCTV footage collected from the spot.
The discharge applications were argued on behalf of the accused persons, Harender Maan and BimleshMaan, by Advocate Rhythm Aggarwal, alongwithAdvocate Neeraj Tiwari.
The defense argued that the prosecution's case was based purely on conjecture and retaliatory allegations, lacking any credible evidence.
Adv. Rhythm Aggarwal contended that the primary allegation against the accused was possession of a revolver purportedly belonging to their late unclewas wholly unsubstantiated, with no proof or licensing records produced by the complainant to establish the existence of such a weapon.
Advocate Rhythm Aggarwal, appearing for the accused, also addressed the prosecution's allegation regarding the recovery of a mobile phone. She submitted that the entire claim was baseless, as at no point during the investigation was any mobile handset, SIM card, or related electronic evidence recovered from the possession or control of the accused persons.
The defence emphasised that the prosecution failed to produce even a single piece of corroborative material connecting the accused with any mobile device allegedly linked to the incident. In the absence of such recovery or technical evidence, the allegation of tampering or using a mobile phone stands wholly unsubstantiated and cannot be relied upon to implicate the accused.
Adv Rhythm Aggarwal has further argued that the prosecution's reliance on disclosure statements of a co-accused was to be legally untenable. It was submitted that such statements, without independent corroboration or recovery, are inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and cannot form the basis of framing charges. (ANI)