Panchkula, July 8 -- Observing that the investigating agency failed to secure and produce the "best evidence" despite the alleged availability of CCTV footage, a Panchkula court acquitted a man accused of rash driving and damaging a parked Audi, holding that the omission created serious doubts about the prosecution's case. The court of additional chief judicial magistrate acquitted Aditya Bansal, a resident of Sector 10, Panchkula, who was booked by Sector 14 police last year under Sections 281 and 324(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The court held in its July 3 judgment that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The case was registered on the complaint of Anurag Naresh, who alleged that around 1.15 am on May 18, 2025, a Maruti Baleno allegedly driven by Bansal in a rash and negligent manner rammed into his parked Audi outside his residence. He claimed the accused's father initially assured him that the damaged car would be repaired but later failed to honour the assurance, prompting him to lodge an FIR on May 22. During the trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses, including the complainant, the accused's father, and three police officials. The complainant told the court that CCTV cameras installed at his house had captured the incident and that he had transferred the footage to the mobile phone of the concerned police official. However, during cross-examination, he admitted that he had not actually witnessed the accident as he was inside his house. The court found that the investigating officer, head constable Sunil Kumar, admitted that he had not taken into possession any CCTV footage of the alleged accident. He also conceded that no independent witness was associated with the investigation despite the accident taking place at a public location, and that there was no eyewitness to the incident. The court observed that the prosecution failed to produce the CCTV footage-the best available evidence-despite the complainant's claim that cameras installed at his house had captured the incident and that the footage had been shared with the police. It held that the omission to produce the CCTV footage raised serious doubts about the prosecution's case. The court further said that despite the availability of the best live evidence in the form of CCTV footage, the investigating officer made no effort to prove the prosecution's case, amounting to suppression of the best evidence and warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. It further noted that the unexplained four-day delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of independent witnesses, and the lack of evidence proving rash and negligent driving significantly weakened the prosecution's case. Holding that in a criminal case, mere suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof, the court granted the accused the benefit of doubt and acquitted him of all charges....