1.

The Complainant says that he has put the signature on the spot Mahazar,
which is prepared at the time of search, without knowing the contents of and
the police have not drawn the Mahazar in his presence and also they have not
seized the document in his presence. Since the complainant is Prosecution
Witness no. 1 in this case, his statement becomes very much important to
prove the guilt of the accused persons, and in this case the statement of the
prosecution witness 1, will hold water only if it is showed that signature was
taken when the search was being made by the Police officials. From the
statement given by the Complainant/Prosecution witness no. 1, it can be seen
that the investigation team and the Prosecution itself has put no effort in
holding the accused in guilty. There is negligence on the part of the police
officials, by not taking the signature of the Complainat/Prosecution Witness 1
at the time of search.

2. The Prosecution witness 2, in this case is Santosh, who is a heresay witness.

It is well established law under the Evidence Act, 1872 that the evidence given
any form by a heresay witness does not stand in the Court of Law, however the
Prosecution still relies upon Santosh, who is a heresay witness in this case.
Generally in practice the heresay witness, even if brought to Court, will be used
as a last resort, however, in this case, the heresay witness is witness no.2, as if
to show that there are no witnesses in this case at all, which is contrary to
actual fact.

3. There are lots of hostile witnesses in this case, from Prosecution witness 3 to
Prosecution witness 9, all claim that they don’t know anything about the
incident, that they have not seen the accused at the place of incident, that they
have not given any statements to the police about the incident etc. It can be
observed from this that, the Prosecution witnesses have either been influenced
by the accused, though physical or economic means, or the Prosecution in this
case has failed to bring out the best out of these witnesses.

4. The women who were the main victims, in this case, where not brought into
the record at all. There statements were not taken by the Police Officials,
during the investigations. Since the women who were the victims attack by the
accused in this case, their statements and medical records itself would have
been enough to prove the accused guilty, however the Investigating officer
claims that he did not procure the presence of these victim women, which goes
to show that how negligent the investigating team has been in this case. The
Court observed the same:

“ It is pertinent to note that as per the prosecution case the accused persons
were assaulted women customers. In order to prove the same the investigating
officer did not procure the presence of women customers in this case and also
not cited them as witnesses in the charge sheet. The women customers are the
victims and they are the best witnesses in this case. If the investigating officer
examined them the real truth would come out it. They are the best witness to
identify the accused persons. Non-securing the victim women is fatal to the
prosecution and it creates the doubt in the mind of this court about the
involvement of the accused persons as alleged by the prosecution.”

5. The Court itself has observed how the Prosecution has not done anything
substantial in proving the guilt of the accused, by saying in para 24 pf the
judgment that “there is no consistent, corroborative and reliable evidence
placed before the court to prove the incident and involvement of the accused
persons as alleged”.

6. Along with this there has been delay in filing of FIR of almost 16 Hours,

received the complaint on 24-01-2009 at 7 P.M. and after receipt of the

complaint registered the case and dispatched the FIR to the court. In this

however, the FIR is reached to the court on 25-01-2009 at 11.A.M. and the

Investigating team has failed to show any reason as to the reason in delay in

dispatching the FIR. This shows that, there was no intention on the part of

the investigating officers to peruse this case seriously, looking at the gravity

of the situation.
7. The Prosecution has failed to submit the media coverage of the whole
incident as evidence before the Court. The media coverage of the incident,
would prove beyond reasonable doubt as to the involvement of the accused in
this case, and therefore it becomes primary evidence and cannot be neglected
at all. However, the prosecution does not submit any media coverage of the
incident, raising doubts as to the intention of the Prosecution in taking this
case seriously.

Due non production of relevant materials before the Court, as evidence and
due to failure on the part of the investigating team to conduct a thorough
investigation, the Judge had no other choice but to acquit the accused.

This is a clear case of failure of Prosecution to conduct a trail in the interest of

victims/complainant; rather the Prosecution has made a very definite situation
of making the accused scot free in this case.

Chances of Appeal:

This case can appealed before the Session Court or High Court, only if we have
something to show that the judgment passed by the lower Court is patently
illegal and there is actually enough evidence to show that the Accused are
actually guilty

However it will be a difficult to maintain the appeal in this case, as the

prosecution in the lower court has produced very weak witnesses and the
Appellate Court will only rely on the witnesses which are produced before the
Lower Court. It is difficult to bring new witness and evidence in appellate
authority.

The new witnesses or evidence can be brought only if they are substantial in
nature. And in this present case, the women victim and the media coverage of
the incident is a substantial evidence which if produced by the Prosecution in
the Appellate Court, then the Accused may be found guilty.
Therefore we have to demand for appealing the decision of the Magistrate Court
before the Session Court. We have to demand the Investigating team to conduct
a proper investigation in this case, and produce the Media Coverage of the
incident. We have to demand the Investigating team to procure the statements
of the women victims in this case and produce it before the Court.