New Delhi: A court here has acquitted two persons in a 2022 murder case, saying the prosecution had failed to establish their identity as the assailants despite proving that the victim died due to injuries inflicted during an assault.

Special Judge Puneet Pahwa was hearing the case against Naushad and Kamruddin, who were accused of assaulting Javed, allegedly leading to his death.

In an order dated June 2, the court said, “This court has no hesitation in holding that both accused persons, namely, Naushad and Kamruddin, are entitled for benefit of doubt and thus, they stand acquitted for the charged offences.”

According to the prosecution, Javed was assaulted in northeast Delhi’s Shastri Park on May 31, 2022, and was declared dead when taken to a hospital. A post-mortem later revealed that he died due to haemorrhagic shock caused by an abdominal injury from blunt force impact.

The prosecution alleged that Naushad and Kamruddin had beaten Javed with a wooden stick and their fists, leading to his death.

During trial however, key witnesses failed to support the prosecution case.

Complainant Nadeem, the deceased’s wife Salma and relative Shokeen were not eyewitnesses to the assault and deposed that they had only been informed about the incident by others.

An alleged eyewitness, Shahjahan, told the court that she had seen two persons assaulting a man and throwing him onto a garbage dump, but failed to identify the accused as assailants.

The court noted that while some witnesses partially supported the prosecution during cross-examination, their testimony was insufficient to establish the identity of the attackers beyond reasonable doubt.

Referring to the evidence on record, the court said the prosecution had succeeded in proving that Javed was assaulted and that the injuries caused his death, but failed to prove who inflicted those injuries.

“Even though the prosecution has been able to prove the alleged incident of beating… it has failed to bring on record any cogent evidence to prove the identity of the accused as those persons who inflicted injuries upon the deceased,” the court held.

The judge observed that the testimonies of the deceased’s wife, complainant and another relative were largely hearsay in nature, while the sole eyewitness could not identify the accused.

Holding that conviction could not be based on such evidence, the court extended the benefit of doubt to both accused and acquitted them of all charges.