3 min readNew DelhiAug 29, 2019 07:13 AM IST
First published on: Aug 29, 2019 at 01:30 AM IST
The prosecution examined 22 witnesses. Out of them, prosecution witness number 2, Mirza Jafar, was the ‘star witness’. (Representational)
Acquitting two men in a murder case, a Delhi court has pulled up Delhi Police for producing a “stock witness” during deposition. It observed that “the investigating officer, in the name of conducting and concluding the investigation, apparently arranged for a stock witness and concluded the investigation in a very clandestine manner”.
The case relates to the murder of a man near a factory in East Delhi’s Brahmpuri. The victim, Savej Raza, had come to Delhi in search of work and was staying at the factory. He was found dead with stab wounds on February 7, 2008. Police arrested two men, Nasir and Kamil, in connection with the murder.
The prosecution examined 22 witnesses. Out of them, prosecution witness number 2, Mirza Jafar, was the ‘star witness’. Jafar had claimed to be a factory owner who saw the accused wielding knives and threatening the victim on the street. He claimed to have told police that the man the accused were threatening was murdered by them.
Additional Sessions Judge Raghubir Singh acquitted the two men after it held that “the sole eyewitness/star witness is not at all a reliable and trustworthy witness. He, rather in a way, can be said to be a stock witness who himself had faced/had been facing criminal charges in several cases and had also been a prosecution witness in other cases, including murder cases. It also stands proved on record that he deposed as a prosecution witness by showing different names and also disguising/manipulating the factum of his own age, etc.”
When the ‘star witness’ was cross-examined, the court held that the prosecution story was doubtful and concocted. This came to light when Jafar was asked about his deposition in previous court cases. It was then found that he had testified in an Arms Act and murder case in 2004 under a different name and age.
The court also expressed doubt on whether Jafar was indeed the owner of the factory, where the victim used to stay.
The court also found that there were several contradictions in the prosecution story and that of the ‘star witness’, including the date when the witness approached police.
The court also held that the prosecution version is heavily shadowed by doubts and ambiguities, including the police claims that they recovered the murder weapon and a purse containing certain photocopies of ration card and other certificates from an open field.
The prosecution examined 22 witnesses. Out of them, prosecution witness number 2, Mirza Jafar, was the ‘star witness’. (Representational)
Share
