Missing CCTV footage leads to acquittal in arson case of Mangalhat

Hyderabad: Nampally Court has acquitted two men accused of setting fire to a saree shop in the Mangalhat area of the city. The court observed that Mangalhat police failed to produce one of the crucial evidence ‘CCTV footage’ leading to the acquittal.

The case, which dates back to December 12, 2018, according to the police, the accused, identified as T.Vishal Singh and Syed Hussain, allegedly burned down ‘Varsha Fancy Sadi,’ a saree business owned by Raj Kishore and his wife. A case was booked under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC).

The police claimed T.Vishal Singh, an “active rowdy sheeter,” had a grudge against the shop owners for refusing to rent out their space for his expanding fast food business. Police investigation revealed T.Vishal Singh and Syed Hussain allegedly consumed alcohol late on the night of December 11, 2018, before using petrol to set fire to the saree shop in the early hours of December 12.

CCTV footage gathered from the neighborhood allegedly showed T.Vishal Singh and Syed Hussain carrying a bottle in a suspicious manner. After the incident, they were absconding and while the investigation was ongoing, they were apprehended by police.

The police brought both accused to the station, where they reportedly confessed to their crime in the presence of two witnesses. Following this, police seized a bike reportedly used in commission of offense and sent them to judicial custody. After completing the investigation and collecting all documents, police filed a charge sheet.

Mangalhat police’s flawed investigation

The case hinged on CCTV footage allegedly showing the accused carrying a bottle filled with petrol near the scene. During the trial, the prosecution failed to produce the CCTV footage, described as ‘crucial evidence’ for identifying the accused.

In a major discrepancy undermining the investigation of Mangalhat police, a witness who was the brother of one of the shop owners admitted to signing pre-written documents at the police station, raising questions about the authenticity of the confession and police investigation.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the evidence. Key discrepancies emerged in the testimonies of the shop owners and the investigating officer regarding the timing and manner of filing the initial complaint. While the complainant stated that the Circle Inspector drafted his statement at the scene of the fire, the investigating officer testified that he received the complaint at the police station.

Explaining the rationale behind the judgment the court noted, “The prosecution did not produce the CCTV clippings or burnt pieces of clothes or two wheeler alleged to have been seized by police. There is no other evidence on record except the alleged CCTV footage, on which the prosecution relied upon, to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt”. The judge concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of both accused.