2020 Gurulal Brar murder: 16 hostile witnesses, lack of evidence led to acquittal
On October 10, 2020, the former SOPU president was shot dead outside the main gate of City Emporium Mall, Industrial Area, allegedly by members of the Davinder Bambiha gang
Witnesses turning hostile and lack of scientific evidence led to the acquittal of the four men accused of murdering gangster Goldy Brar’s cousin and former Student Organisation of Panjab University (SOPU) student leader Gurlal Singh Brar in Chandigarh in 2020.
On October 10, 2020, the former SOPU president was shot dead outside the main gate of City Emporium Mall, Industrial Area, allegedly by members of the Davinder Bambiha gang.
Four persons, Gurvinder Singh, 23, and Gurmeet Singh, 28, of Mohali, Chamkor Singh, 27, of Moga and Neeraj Gupta, 28, of Faridkot, were arrested, but on March 1, they were acquitted of a slew of charges, including murder (Section 302), criminal conspiracy (120-B), acts done by several persons (Section 34), making or possessing counterfeit seal with intent to commit forgery (Section 473) of the Indian Penal Code and other charges under sections of the Arms Act.
The prosecution stated that a case was registered on the statement of Vikas Tiwari of Chandigarh, who was a parking valet at a prominent hotel in the Industrial Area. Tiwari told the cops that around midnight he spotted a white Fortuner parked in front of the main gate of the mall. He directed the driver to the parking lot, but he said that he would be returning in a minute or two. Just then two men, who were armed with pistols, came from the Centra Mall side on foot, and opened fire at the Fortuner. The man in the Fortuner was Gurlal Brar, and he succumbed to the gunshot wounds at the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research.
“After firing six to seven shots, they fled on the motorcycle, which was being driven by another person,” Tiwari said in his statement, adding, “he could identify the three men, if produced before him.”
However, in a volte-face, Tiwari, the key witness in the case, failed to identify the accused persons in the court. He deposed, “They are not the same persons who opened fire upon the deceased.” Another key witness, Tanusha Sharma in whom the victim had, as per the prosecution, confided that he feared that the accused will kill him also recanted her statement. Fourteen other material witnesses also failed to identify the accused.
“The complainant was the sole eye-witness of the occurrence, and when stepped into witness box he has stated about the occurrence but as per him, the present accused persons were not the culprits of that occurrence. When the eye-witness has specifically denied the involvement of the present accused persons in the said occurrence, some credence could have been given to the case of the prosecution if some other scientific evidence would have been brought on the record by it. However, even the weapon of offence has not been taken into possession in this case,” the court of additional sessions judge Jaibir Singh observed, before acquitting all accused by giving them the “benefit of reasonable doubt”.