New Delhi: A Delhi court has acquitted three individuals accused of shooting a man in west Delhi back in 2017, concluding that the prosecution failed to establish their presence at the crime scene or involvement in the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Additional Sessions Judge Pooja Talwar presided over the case involving defendants Mohd Guddu, Ram alias Vicky, and Lakhan Mahawar alias Golu. In an order issued on October 6, the court stated that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove that the accused individuals were at the incident location or responsible for the alleged acts.
The prosecution case stemmed from an incident on June 22, 2017, when victim Sameer Khan was attacked near the Municipal Corporation of Delhi office in Subhash Nagar. Khan initially told police that Guddu suspected him of acting as a police informer, alleging that the group assaulted him before Guddu shot him. A formal case was subsequently registered at the Rajouri Garden police station.
During the ensuing proceedings, Guddu and Ram faced charges for attempt to murder and common intention, with Guddu additionally charged under the Arms Act. Lakhan, who was apprehended later in 2025, faced charges under corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita alongside allegations of failing to appear in court after being designated a proclaimed offender.
However, during the trial, complainant and primary witness Sameer Khan failed to support the prosecution narrative. While he acknowledged his thumb impression on the initial police complaint, he disputed its contents and testified that he never saw the faces of the assailants. Khan further alleged that authorities obtained his thumb impressions on blank sheets of paper and showed him a photograph of Lakhan prior to conducting a jail identification parade.
Additional testimony from two public witnesses, who had contacted law enforcement after the wounded man sought assistance, indicated they had not actually witnessed the event. The court also highlighted that medical professionals were unable to determine the exact nature of the injuries because the victim departed the hospital prematurely.
The judiciary observed that even if the intent and injury were theoretically established, questions remained regarding whether the actions could be tied directly to the defendants. The ruling emphasized that no ocular, documentary, or forensic evidence existed to connect the accused individuals to the crime. Furthermore, Lakhan was cleared of the non-appearance charge due to improperly executed legal procedures, leading to the total acquittal of all three defendants.