Chandigarh: Appeal against acquittal of former deputy mayor and son in arms case dismissed

Chandigarh: A local court has rejected the state government’s appeal against the acquittal of former BJP councillor and deputy mayor Anil Dubey and his son Sanu Dubey in a case registered 11 years ago. On May 17, 2013, the police had registered a case against them at Mani Majra police station under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act on the complaint of Mukesh Rai, a resident of Vikas Nagar, Mauli Jagran. The complainant said that he had some dispute with Anil Dubey, a resident of Vikas Nagar, and he had lodged a complaint against him with the police. After this, talks were going on between the two for a settlement. Meanwhile, Sanu Dubey along with another person threatened him. Later, the complainant along with his friend and brother went to Anil Dubey’s house to complain about his son. As soon as they reached near the house, Sanu Dubey, carrying a double barrel gun, opened fire. Anil Dubey also took out a pistol and started abusing. After investigation, the police presented a challan against both the accused in the court, after which charges were framed against them. The trial court acquitted both of them on 14 December 2017. Aggrieved by the judgment, the State filed an appeal against it. The Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant State argued that the trial court had wrongly acquitted the respondents of the charges framed against them. A.S. Gujral, counsel for the respondents, argued that there was absolutely no illegality or defect in the judgment passed by the trial court and the respondents-accused were rightly acquitted. In fact, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the respondents-accused. Admittedly, a cross-case was filed against the complainant on the statement of respondent-Anil Dubey and the present case was filed by the complainant in response to the case. After hearing the arguments, the appellant Sessions Court upheld the judgment of the lower court. The Court said that the prosecution failed to complete the chain of evidence going to the root of the case.