New Delhi [India], May 7 : Delhi's Dwarka Court has recently acquitted gangster Vikas Langarpuria and two others in an attempt to murder case.
Langarpuria had allegedly fired at a businessman cum local leader in the Najafgarh area in 2014.
Vikas Langarpuria has also been acquitted of the offence of Non-appearance before the court despite the issuance of a Proclamation. He absconded during the trial. He was deported from Dubai.
While acquitting the accused persons Additional Sessions Judge Viplab Dabas said, "This Court is of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts".
Accordingly, the accused persons namely Vikas Lagarpuria, Dhirpal alias Kana and Paramjeet are hereby acquitted of charges punishable under sections 307, 452 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC levelled against them, the court ordered on April 29.
Accused Vikas Lagarpuria is further acquitted for the offence punishable under section 174 A IPC levelled against him, the court ordered.
These three persons were accused in a case of attempt to murder, trespassing, and intimidation under sections of IPC. They were also accused in the Arms Act case.
Accused Vikas Langarpuria was additionally accused of Non-appearance before the court despite the issuance of Proclamation Proceedings.
The court also rejected the submissions by the prosecution and got satisfied with the arguments of the defence.
The court said, "This Court is of the view that arguments advanced by the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients necessary for the completion of the alleged offences do not have any force whereas the arguments made on behalf of defence that the accused persons have been falsely implicated are found to be justified".
As per the prosecution, "On 23.02.2014, accused persons namely Dhirpal, Vikas Lagarpuria and Paramjeet in entered into house/office of complainant Bijender in Nehru Garden Colony, Main Gurgaon Road, Najafgarh".
It was alleged that the accused persons had criminally intimidated the complainant by threatening him and firing upon the complainant.
On the basis of aforesaid facts, present FIR number 153/2014 under sections 307, 452 and 34 of IPC and 25, 27 Arms Act was registered against all the accused persons.
However, during the cross-examination by the additional public prosecutor, the complainant resiled from his statement given to police and did not identify the accused persons.
He denied that the accused Vikas alias Vikas Lagarpuria was the person who had fired towards him. He also denied that accused Dhirpal was also with the accused Vikas and that accused Vikas had fired twice at the spot.
He deposed that he did not make any complaint to the senior police officer regarding obtaining his signature on some papers by police. He deposed that he did not make any such complaint because his statement was recorded by the police and on the same his signature was obtained.
Advocate rudh Yadav, counsel for Vikas Langarpuria argued that the accused is falsely implicated and not connected with this case.
Another eye witness Prem Singh had also resiled from his statement. He also said that he had given a statement to the police.
He denied that that boy (Vikas Langarpuria) who came to his plot had asked Bijender that you slapped one Bhartey on which Bijender told that it was their election matter.
He also denied that on this the aforesaid boy got annoyed and told that firstly he would kill Manjeet Mahal and thereafter will kill him, immediately thereafter the boy took out a pistol from the right side of his pant and pointed the same towards Bijender.
Additional public prosecutor Girish Kumar Manhas submitted that moreover the complainant/eyewitnesses in such cases turn hostile due to fear of future enmity with the offenders, so the firm testimony of the police cannot be discarded in such circumstances.
He further stated that the factum of accused Vikas Lagarpuria having absconded during the trial and being declared as proclaimed person punishable under section 174 A of IPC is also duly proved on record.
On the other hand, defence counsel stated that the hostility of the complainant and other eyewitnesses substantiates the defence version of false implication of the accused persons by the police witnesses by mpulating the documents for working out the case who have obtained signatures of the eyewitnesses on blank documents.
Advocate rudh Yadav Counsel for accused Vikas Lagarpuria submitted that the proceedings under section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) were not executed properly and hence no offence punishable under section 174A of IPC is made out against him.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor