Court acquits man accused of attempting to kill constable, slams prosecution story

The court found several other inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution’s story. Manpreet Singh (24), a resident of Fatehgarh Sahib, surrendered before a magistrate in August 2011, in connection with an FIR against an unknown driver of an Alto car in August 2010.

According to the prosecution, Manpreet had allegedly hit constable Kulwinder Singh when the latter signalled him to stop at a barricade laid by the Excise and Taxation Department in Phase 1 on August 21, 2010. Kulwinder had alleged that he suffered injuries after the Alto car hit him with an intention to kill, before fleeing the spot.

The constable noted down the car’s registration number, and identified the driver as a clean-shaven man and a passenger as a turbaned Sikh. Manpreet, a turbaned Sikh, mysteriously surrendered a year later and his counsel argued that he was forced to surrender after his car was taken into possession by the police.

The challan against him was presented “without mentioning whether he had been driving the car or he had been sitting alongside the driver and as to what happened to the other person who was sitting in the car”.

During the trial, Kulwinder turned hostile and did not identify the accused. Interestingly, however, the Investigating Officer produced a supplementary statement by Kulwinder recorded in August 2010, identifying Manpreet as the driver of the offending vehicle.

The court noted that Manpreet was identified after he surrendered a year later, and could not have been identified in August 2010. “When its own personnel are involved, the extent to which the police can go has been exemplified in this case… it seems there was some confusion in the mind of the IO but to strengthen the case, he committed forgery in record and falsely recorded the supplementary statement,” said the court.

It further noted that there was confusion among the alleged eyewitnesses whether Manpreet was driving the car or sitting alongside the driver. After he surrendered, the police “stopped all its inquiries, little bothering about the other man in the car”. At least one independent witness was present at the barricade and could have made a “dispassionate and truthful statement” but was not joined in the investigation, it said.

Above all, the court observed that the injuries suffered by Kulwinder were very simple in nature and were “impossible to occur” due to a strike by a speeding vehicle. These injuries could not have been made by someone intending to kill him, the judge said.

“Thus, the entire story is shrouded with doubts,” the judge said while acquitting Manpreet.