Murder-dacoity case in Pitampura Citing

New Delhi : A court here has convicted three men in a 2015 dacoity and murder case, saying the accused are clearly visible committing the crime in the CCTV footage seized by the forensic science laboratory and there is not an iota of doubt about their identity.

The court said it was "unfortunate" that there was no attempt to provide immediate medical assistance to the victim who was bleeding heavily after being shot. He was later declared dead at a hospital.

Additional Sessions Judge Vikram was hearing the case against six accused registered at the Punjabi Bagh police station. While two accused in the case are absconding, the court acquitted an accused, who allegedly provided “initial inputs” to the other accused persons about the “opportunity of robbing the de-ceased”, saying there was insufficient evidence against him.

Additional Public Prosecutor Vineet Dahiya said that the accused after com-mitting dacoity at the Pitampura office of Nikhil Agarwal, a distributor of mobile connection services, shot him on January 9, 2015. In its verdict dated Decem-ber 4, the judge said, "I am of the view that prosecution has proved all the charges against accused Adil Khan, Shehzad and Amit Kumar. Therefore, these accused are held guilty on all the charges." The court said that the crime was captured in the office's CCTV, and the video quality of the footage was so clear that there was not an iota of doubt about the identity of the accused. It said, "The accused persons are clearly visible in the CCTV footage (while) committing the crime. There is no need for any fur-ther discussion except the admissibility of the CCTV footage, which from the fact that the footage was seized by the forensic science laboratory (FSL) team and developed independently, cannot be questioned."

The court also said that a prosecution witness, who was present in the victim's office, had given the exact account as seen in the footage and had also identi-fied all the accused. It trashed the argument of the defence counsel that there was no independent witness for the recovery of the robbed cash from the ac-cused.