After being incarcerated for over four years for the offence of rape and murder of his 82-year-old employer, the Delhi High Court on Thursday acquitted the domestic help saying the prosecution failed to prove the case.
A Bench of Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice Vinod Goel quashed an order of a trial court here sending accused Neeraj Safi to life imprisonment for the crime which took place at a south Delhi apartment in July 2014.
Trial court’s verdict
The Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee through its panel lawyer S.B. Dandapani had contested the trial court’s January 31, 2017, verdict on behalf of Safi before the HC.
Safi was employed as a domestic help of the deceased, who lived alone in the ground floor of her house at Greater Kailash-II. He lived in a separate servant quarter of the building.
The first floor was owned by another daughter of the deceased, who herself lived with her husband and family at Saket.
The police had claimed that Safi first raped her in the outer room on the first floor of the house and then strangulated her with a chunni. Scared, he set the room on fire and then quietly came back to his own room.
The High Court, however, noted that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive of crime as nothing belonging to the deceased was stolen and her house itself was not touched.
“She was found in a burnt condition on the first floor of the building in the flat gifted by her to her daughter. The trial court seeks to explain the motive for commission of the crime as being the sexual urge of the appellant and nothing else,” the High Court said.
With the medical and forensic evidence ruling out the possibility of Safi having committed the physical sexual assault on the deceased, the prosecution has failed to prove the motive for a crime, it remarked.
‘Safi informed everyone’
The High Court additionally pointed out that after the incident took place, Safi called the neighbours, telephoned the daughter of the deceased who lives in the US. He remained present at the spot throughout.
“This is certainly not the conduct of a person who has committed such a serious crime. It is strange that despite noticing these facts, the trial court used it against the appellant to say that since this conduct was unusual, he must be the person who is guilty,” the High Court said.
The Bench observed that the crime in the present case was “indeed horrific” but the evidence placed on record by the prosecution has failed to prove that it is Safi who is responsible for the crime.
“Howsoever strong a suspicion might be, it cannot constitute proof and is insufficient to return a finding of guilt,” the Bench said.