HC acquits 3 men convicted in 2008 murder of woman

DEHRADUN: Uttarakhand high court has set aside the 2014 conviction of three men in a 2008 case in which an elderly woman was shot dead and her grandson suffered bullet injuries, saying the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. In the same judgment, the court also dismissed the state’s appeal against the acquittal of one by the trial court.A division bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani and Justice Siddhartha Sah delivered the ruling on April 8 while hearing a batch of connected criminal appeals.The case stemmed from an FIR lodged on May 8, 2008, at Kotwali Laksar, Haridwar. Vimla Devi -- mother and key witness in the murder of notorious gangster Sanjay Kanhawali -- a resident of Laksar, was shot dead while she was on her way to court by three assailants on a motorcycle. Her grandson Atul suffered bullet injuries.Atul filed a case against Praveen Valmiki (a resident of Ramnagar in Roorkee), Narendra Valmiki (a resident of Tanshipur) and Pappu Gujjar (a resident of Kanhawali). Based on the evidence and witness testimonies, a trial court found them guilty of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment.The HC, however, found that the prosecution story had “fundamental inconsistencies”, as on the next day of the incident, Atul allegedly told the investigating officer that the assailants were not the persons named in the FIR, but some others whose faces he could identify. The HC bench said this was a “very wavering statement” and a major shift regarding versions of events, the number and identity of assailants as the FIR initially mentioned five attackers.HC said the persons originally named in the FIR were known to Atul and his brother Ashish as the three were accused in an earlier murder case of their father and were allegedly threatening the family to settle the matter. In that background, the bench said there was little scope for mistaken identity.HC held that Praveen Valmiki’s confession before police was inadmissible, ruling that the Arms Act conviction against him could not stand because sanction under Section 39 of the Arms Act was not proved. As for Pappu Gujjar and Susheel, the court said the evidence about threats and alleged phone contact did not establish conspiracy or common intention, and the call detail evidence was not proved.