In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday acquitted 30 employees in a 14-year-old case related to an alleged attack on management staff at the Toyota Techno Park in Bidadi. The court strongly criticized the investigating officer for displaying bias and committing serious procedural lapses during the probe.
Court Slams Investigation, Orders Police Action
Justice HP Sandesh, while delivering the verdict, directed the director-general and inspector-general of police to initiate disciplinary action against the investigating officer, Vijayakumar. The judge mandated the submission of a progress report on the action taken. The court's order came after a thorough review of the case records, which revealed multiple failures in the investigation process.
The prosecution had alleged that on March 19, 2011, the accused employees formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the management staff of M/s Stanzen Toyotetsu India Pvt Ltd. The incident, which occurred at the Toyota Techno Park in Bidadi, reportedly caused injuries to the staff members.
A Long Legal Journey Through Lower Courts
The case had a protracted legal history before reaching the High Court. In January 2019, a magistrate's court in Ramanagara convicted the 30 individuals. Applying the Probation of Offenders Act, the court found that the accused fell within its provisions and called for a report, requiring all of them to execute bonds with surety.
This conviction was subsequently upheld by a sessions court in February 2020. Following this, the convicted employees approached the Karnataka High Court, challenging the lower courts' judgments. Their appeal highlighted critical legal issues that formed the basis for the High Court's eventual acquittal.
Critical Lapses That Undermined the Case
Justice Sandesh identified several glaring irregularities in the police investigation that fundamentally weakened the prosecution's case. The judge noted that although the incident occurred around 10:30 PM and the investigating officer reached the spot within 45 minutes, returning twice later, he failed to register a complaint immediately despite a cognizable offence being evident.
Key evidence, including a steel window frame, was left untouched at the scene. Astonishingly, despite the officer remaining at the location for nearly 19 hours, the First Information Report (FIR) was submitted to the court two days later without any reasonable explanation for the delay.
The court observed that the IO's actions violated Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Despite being aware that a cognizable offence had taken place, the officer did not record statements from the injured persons or eyewitnesses promptly. He acted only after deliberation and prior consultation, which indicated a lack of impartiality.
Justice Sandesh pointed out that the complaint was filed at the instance of the management, as admitted in the records, and the case was registered accordingly. Notably, a complaint from one of the accused had been submitted the previous day, but it was taken up for investigation only after the management's case was registered, suggesting preferential treatment.
The judgment stated, "There is no legal evidence before the trial court while convicting the accused numbers 1 to 30. Even witnesses have not spoken at the first instance by any of the injured persons that the particular accused persons assaulted them, but only that there was an improvement in the evidence. Even the report under the Probation of Offenders Act was not submitted to the court."
The defense had also argued that the sessions court erroneously allowed the investigating officer to submit additional evidence and produce a certified copy of the FIR, which was not originally placed before the magistrate's court. They further contended that the trial court took more than seven years to complete the trial, causing undue hardship.
Concluding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to the tainted investigation, Justice Sandesh set aside the conviction orders passed by both the magistrate's court and the sessions court. The acquittal of all 30 accused brings a definitive end to a legal battle that spanned over a decade, highlighting the critical importance of procedural integrity in criminal investigations.
