The Indian Express (Delhi Edition)
Firing at 2 Najafgarh jewellery stores: Court discharges six accused
ON JUNE 21, 2020, a few masked men fired shots at two jewellery stores situated a few metres apart in West Delhi's Najafgarh. The prosecution relied on CCTV footage along with a “warning slip” purportedly given to an employee at one of the stores to hold six persons responsible for the extortion.
According to police, one of the accused persons had allegedly left a slip warning an employee of PC Jewellers that the next bullet would be fired on his chest. Officials had said the accused was a member of the Lawrence Bishnoi-kala Jathedi gang.
On Saturday, the six accused, represented by Advocate Deepak Sharma, were discharged by a Delhi court which observed that after over three years of the chargesheet being filed in the case, handwriting samples of neither of the accused were ever collected to confirm that the slip was, in fact, left behind by one of them.
There was “nothing to even prima facie suggest that the said chit was written by or under the instructions of any of the accused persons,” said Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Rajat Goyal of Dwarka Court while discharging the accused.
As per allegations of the complainant, at around 2.45 pm, a masked person came inside the shop and threw the chit carrying the warning at the cash counter. Following this, he came out and fired at the glass door of PC Jewellers situated in Gaushala road, Najafgarh.
The prosecution relied on the statements of a witness, Subodh Kumar, who stated that around 15 minutes before the incident took place, two persons on a motorcycle and three in one Honda Amaze car were seen pointing towards the shop of PC Jewellers. Upon checking CCTV footage, Kumar said he could say that the person who had fired on PC Jewellers was the same who had fired on the shop of Gehna Jewellers — located a few metres away.
“Merely because persons in the Honda Amaze car were pointing out towards the shop of PC Jewellers, it cannot be said that they were involved in the incident in question,” said the court.