HC acquits 5 men in 2016 dacoity, sexual assault case

Dehradun: Uttarakhand high court has set aside the Jan 21, 2021, conviction of five accused in a dacoity and sexual assault case of July 2016, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt.Deciding a batch of connected criminal appeals, a division bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani and Justice Siddhartha Sah on March 16 acquitted Safeek Qureshi, Rohit, Amir Mohd, Nizamuddin and Shaukin Mewati of offences under IPC sections 395 (dacoity) and 376D (gang rape) and Pocso Act section 5(g)/6. Nizamuddin and Safeek Qureshi were also acquitted of the charge under IPC section 412, while Nizamuddin was acquitted in the Arms Act case under section 4/25.HC ordered that all accused be released from jail forthwith if not wanted in any other case, subject to bonds under CrPC section 437-A.The trial court had convicted the accused on the prosecution's case that in the intervening night of July 23 and 24, 2016, about 10-12 armed miscreants entered the house of the survivors' family, assaulted the members, looted jewellery and other articles, and sexually assaulted two daughters.HC, however, found major evidentiary gaps in the prosecution version. A central reason for acquittal was the failure of identification. The FIR did not name any accused. Key witnesses, including the mother and two survivors, stated that the assailants were masked and only their eyes were visible, making identification unreliable, especially when no test identification parade was held.Medical evidence was found doubtful. While witnesses claimed the victims were severely beaten, the initial medical examination on July 24, 2016, recorded no injuries. However, injuries noted during a subsequent examination on July 26 raised further doubts about their connection to the alleged incident.On the alleged recovery of jewellery and a knife, HC found the evidence unreliable. It held that the identification of recovered jewellery was compromised because the investigating officer was present during the identification process, attracting the bar under section 162 CrPC. The recovery of the knife from Nizamuddin lacked independent witnesses and showed deficiencies in the search procedure.Concluding that the trial court erred in convicting the appellants, the High Court allowed all appeals and set aside the trial court's judgments.