However, during the course of trial and appeal, the prosecution’s narrative failed to hold ground. The court noted that none of the key witnesses, including police officials and alleged victims, identified Gautam Cheema or any other accused in court. Several witnesses turned hostile and either contradicted earlier statements or denied the occurrence altogether.
The court also found that the prosecution failed to prove even the basic fact that Sumedh Gulati was ever in lawful police custody before being allegedly taken away. Testimonies of crucial witnesses, including ASI Dilbagh Singh, were riddled with contradictions, and no reliable documentation supported the claim of Gulati’s presence at the police station at the relevant time.
Significantly, the court observed that the reliance on photo identification during investigation was legally weak, especially in the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP). Witnesses later denied identifying the accused through photographs, further damaging the prosecution’s case.
Digital evidence, including CCTV footage and call detail records (CDRs), also failed to support the allegations. Much of this material was either not properly collected or declared inadmissible due to non-compliance with Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Notably, available records even indicated that Gautam Cheema may not have been present at the alleged location during the time of the incident.
The court further highlighted that Sumedh Gulati himself denied the prosecution’s version, stating he was arrested directly from the hospital and not taken from police custody by any accused.
Calling the prosecution’s case “speculative and unsupported by legally admissible evidence,” the court emphasized that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot substitute proof in criminal law. It held that the chain of evidence was incomplete and failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Consequently, the court granted the benefit of doubt to Gautam Cheema and all other accused, acquitting them of charges under Sections 120-B, 186, and 225 IPC. The judgment underscores serious lapses in investigation and prosecution in what was once considered a high-profile case involving a senior police officer.