Saying that the case was not “fairly investigated” by the Delhi Police, a city court has acquitted a man charged with jumping a traffic signal and beating up a traffic police constable in east Delhi’s Kalyanpuri. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Amit Arora said there were certain lacunae in the case, which the prosecution failed to explain, leading to acquittal of the accused.
According to court records, the incident took place in 2007, when a car coming from New Kondli area jumped the traffic signal at Chilla Sports complex circle and hit a police constable. When police chased the car, the driver stepped out, held the constable by the collar, and verbally abused and beat him up, court records stated. In a statement to the court, the accused denied the allegations and said police personnel beat him up, adding that he was saved by bystanders. He said he was falsely implicated as his medico-legal report was not even submitted in court. The defence had argued that the concealment of the accused’s MLC raises suspicion on the prosecution’s version.
After hearing both sides, the court said testimonies of the traffic police constables raised serious questions on the sequence of events, and on whether the accused beat the constable.
The court also noted that the “front glass” of the accused’s vehicle was broken. It said an attempt was made by the witness to explain that the windscreen was broken after the car hit the constable.
The court, however, said, “The non-recording of this fact in the rukka/FIR leaves a room of doubt. It probabalises the version of the defence and, therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the same was broken by the traffic police official,” the court said.
The court said there was a “question mark” on the prosecution version.
“In such circumstances, seeking corroboration from independent witnesses becomes necessary. No efforts were made by the prosecution to join any public witness during the entire investigation,” the court said, adding, “Accordingly, the defence of the accused appears to be probable and he is given benefit of doubt.”