District Sessions Court in Nagpur Delivers Landmark Verdict
Nagpur: In a rare and intriguing case, the District Sessions Court in Nagpur has acquitted two men who had been absconding for over 22 years. Despite being on the run, the court conducted hearings in their absence and finally declared them not guilty due to lack of evidence.
The case dates back to July 26, 2002, when Suraj Singh Ajitsingh Lote and Sapanjeet Jagdishsingh Lote were booked under IPC Sections 324 and 34 at the Jaripatka Police Station. The same day, both were arrested but later released on bail. Since then, they had been untraceable and were considered absconders.
Gold Rate
29 May 2025
After 22 years, 8 months, and 20 days, on May 27, 2025, the court announced its verdict, acquitting both accused due to insufficient evidence.
The Incident
According to the prosecution, on the evening of July 26, 2002, at around 7 PM, the complainant was standing near the NIT quarters in Kapil Nagar. The accused allegedly confronted him and hurled abuses because the complainant’s mother had earlier filed a complaint against them at the police station.
Court Proceedings
Following the filing of the charge sheet, the case remained pending as the accused repeatedly failed to appear in court. The court issued several non-bailable warrants, but the police were unable to trace the accused. Eventually, the court issued a proclamation declaring them absconders.
As per Section 299 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court proceeded to record witness statements in the absence of the accused. The prosecution managed to produce three witnesses to support the government’s case. However, notices sent to the complainant and other key witnesses yielded no result, as police reported their whereabouts as unknown.
Weak Testimonies Led to Acquittal
One witness identified the accused and confirmed that police had summoned him to the crime scene as a “panch” (witness). However, during cross-examination, the same witness retracted most of his statements, claiming he did not recall specific details. Another witness stated he could not remember what he had told the police during the investigation.
The police had also seized a knife allegedly used to injure the complainant. Despite this, due to weak testimonies and lack of substantial evidence, the court gave the benefit of the doubt to the absconding accused and declared them not guilty.
