The district court of Chandigarh on Tuesday sentenced a 27-year-old man to four year imprisonment for assaulting a traffic police head constable at a traffic check post near Aroma Light Point Sector 22, in 2017.
The convict, Sahil Sharma has been held guilty under sections 279 (rash and negligent driving), 333 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty) and 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) of the Indian Penal Code, by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dr Ajit Attri.
As per the Prosecution, the case was registered on the statement of Head Constable, Gulzari Lal. He stated that on June 27, 2017, he along with Constable Krishan Kumar was performing duty at Aroma Light Point, Sector 22. At about 11.40 am they were standing near Traffic Police booth and were issuing challan against the traffic violators, two men without helmet came on black Pulsar motorcycle driven in a rash manner. Constable Krishan Kumar signaled them to stop but they did not stop, while HC Gulzari Lal was just standing next to the constable and thereafter he signaled them to stop. But they did not stop and hit the motorcycle straight to the HC, and fled away from the spot. Due to the hit, Gulzari Lal fell down on the road and sustained injuries. He was taken to hospital in the PCR for treatment. The accused, however, was held by the police at the hospital GMSH -16, where the complainant Head Constable was also present, who saw the accused at hospital. The accused was then arrested.
During trial, the defense counsel argued that prosecution story is unreliable and full of contradictions. If the police was not aware about the details of the accused, then also he has arrested as an accused and it does not stand to reason that anyone after causing the incident will visit the hospital where injured is admitted for treatment.
The court, citing a case of Dhanaj Singh vs State of Punjab, held that “…in the case of a defective investigation the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective…”
The court thus sentenced four year imprisonment to the accused.