Lucknow Court Acquits Moeed Ahmad, Highlights Major Police Investigation Failures
In a significant ruling, a court in Lucknow has acquitted Moeed Ahmad, citing a complete failure by the prosecution to produce any credible evidence linking him to the alleged offence. The judgment delivered a sharp critique of serious lapses in the police investigation, which substantially weakened the case against the accused.
Forensic Examination and Mobile Phone Analysis Yield No Evidence
The court noted that a forensic examination of Moeed Ahmad's mobile phone revealed no data at all, contradicting initial suspicions. During cross-examination, the investigating officer admitted that although the phone was seized on the suspicion of containing objectionable footage, no such material was ever found. This finding significantly undermined the prosecution's case and reinforced the defence's claim that allegations of video recording were entirely baseless.
Failure to Collect Call Detail Records and Location Data
The court came down heavily on the police for their failure to collect call detail records (CDRs) and mobile location data of the accused, the survivor, and her mother. This omission occurred despite allegations that phone calls were used to summon the minor involved in the case. Both investigating officers conceded that no effort was made to verify call records, track mobile locations, or independently corroborate the prosecution's version of events, highlighting a critical gap in the investigative process.
Contradictions in Witness Statements and Lack of Verification
The judgment further highlighted contradictions in the survivor's statements recorded under sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, particularly regarding the role of an individual referred to as Mohit. The court observed that despite repeated references to this person, the police made no attempt to verify his identity or existence. The investigating officer admitted that he was unaware of how many persons named Mohit lived within his jurisdiction, raising serious questions about the thoroughness of the probe.
Procedural Irregularities and Possible Influence
Concern was also expressed over procedural irregularities in the case. One notable instance involved the survivor and her mother failing to appear before the court on a scheduled date; instead, they were taken to the police station. This raised doubts about possible influence or coercion prior to their testimony, further eroding the credibility of the prosecution's narrative.
Contrast with Conviction of Co-Accused Based on Evidence
In stark contrast to Moeed Ahmad's acquittal, the court relied on robust evidence, including DNA profiling and medical reports, to convict co-accused Raju. This underscores the importance of solid, verifiable evidence in securing convictions, as opposed to the weak and unsubstantiated case presented against Ahmad.
The acquittal of Moeed Ahmad serves as a reminder of the critical need for meticulous and unbiased police investigations to ensure justice is served accurately and fairly.
