In Maharashtra's Thane district, a 41-year-old man, who was accused of manhandling a traffic police inspector in 2010, was acquitted by a sessions court. According to a report in PTI, the man was acquitted by Additional Sessions Judge VL Bhosale.
Representative Image
In Maharashtra's Thane district, a 41-year-old man, who was accused of manhandling a traffic police inspector in 2010, was acquitted by a sessions court. According to a report in PTI, the man was acquitted by Additional Sessions Judge VL Bhosale.
ADVERTISEMENT
Reportedly, the court in its order dated November 8, had ruled in favour of the accused due to a lack of substantial evidence. The order was made available on Wednesday.
The PTI report citing the order also stated that the prosecution could not produce a satisfactory response to questions raised by the counsel for the accused.
Reportedly, the Additional Public Prosecutor Varsha Chandane told the court that the incident happened on November 3, 2010, at a chowk in the Naupada area of Thane city. Chandane claimed that the accused had double-parked his car. He was then fined by the traffic cop for the violation.
The report further stated that the accused, allegedly, claimed to be a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) officer and threatened the traffic cop. The prosecution allegedly stated that the accused threatened the cop by saying he would "ruin" him and that he also tried to pull the cop's nameplate and began pushing him and verbally assaulting him.
However, Defence counsel Sachin Vaishampayan highlighted the deficiencies in the police investigation and prosecution's narrative. He further stated that his client was not involved in the crime.
The judge, according to PTI, in his order did not only observe that the prosecution did not give a satisfactory response to queries raised by the defence, but it also noted that showing ownership of the vehicle was not as important for the prosecution as it was to prove the presence of the accused on the spot. The court noted that the prosecution has presented no evidence to that effect.
The court noted, as per the defence's argument, that no independent witness as examined by the prosecution appeared to be unsatisfactory too as the incident happened in a public place and there were many people watching it. It also said that there were many shops at the spot but none were examined by the prosecution nor did they give any reason to not examine them.
The court ultimately concluded that the prosecution had not convincingly demonstrated the alleged incident's occurrence, including the accused's obstruction of the officer's duty and thus acquitted the accused giving him benefit of the doubt.
With agency inputs
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
