Thane Court Acquits Five in 2020 Police Assault Case Citing Major Contradictions
A court in Thane has acquitted five persons accused of assaulting police personnel in 2020, highlighting "glaring and irreconcilable" contradictions in testimonies, absence of medical proof or witnesses, missing duty records, and no evidence of common intention or pre-arranged plan.
Background of the Case
The incident occurred at Kalwa police station in Maharashtra's Thane district on February 7, 2020. According to the prosecution, a sub-inspector and another policeman alleged that one of the accused caught hold of their collars simultaneously during the altercation.
Court's Scrutiny of Prosecution Claims
Additional Sessions Judge V L Bhosale pointed out the logical impossibility of the prosecution's claims, stating, "This is physically impossible. One person cannot simultaneously catch the collars of two different persons. This contradiction is not on some minor or collateral matter, but goes to the very heart of the prosecution case - namely, who assaulted WHOM." A copy of the order dated January 29 was made available on Monday.
Charges and Accused Details
The accused -- Chittaranjan Bharti, Pawan Kuril, Chandrakant Kuril, Rupali Kuril and Savita Kuril -- faced charges under Indian Penal Code sections:
- 353 (assault on a public servant)
- 504 (intentional insult)
- 323 (voluntarily causing hurt)
- 160 (affray)
The case against the sixth accused, Kanchan Motilal Kuril, was abated as she died during the pendency of the trial. Defence lawyers effectively challenged the charges, punching holes in the prosecution's case.
Fatal Defects in Evidence
The court found the testimony of the four police witnesses to be riddled with "fatal defects". It further noted the complete absence of any medical evidence, which is crucial in a case of assault. The court also pointed to a lack of documentary evidence to establish that the officers were on duty, with no duty roster and no station diary entries produced for the relevant time.
In cases involving police officers as witnesses, the production of the duty roster and related documents is essential, the court emphasized.
Legal Interpretation of Affray Charge
On the charge of affray (Sec 160), the court clarified, "The word 'fighting' necessarily implies mutual combat - a situation where both sides are actively engaged in fighting with each other. One-sided assault or attack does not constitute 'fighting'."
Prosecution's Failure to Prove Case
The prosecution failed to bridge the gap between "may be true" and "must be true", the court said, while granting the benefit of doubt to the accused. "The prosecution has completely failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt," the judge concluded.
