Mumbai, Feb 9 A sessions court here on Monday acquitted a woman traffic police constable and a businessman's son in a 15-year-old case filed against each other over a dispute related to parking a car on a south Mumbai road, finding inconsistencies in their versions of the incident.
While acquitting the duo, who had filed complaints against each other following the dispute, Additional Sessions Judge S R Navander noted the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt the offences alleged by both sides.
The court, however, acknowledged that there was a verbal altercation between the two during the row which appeared to have escalated into a quarrel.
The incident dates back to March 30, 2011, when the constable requested the businessman's son to move his car from a no-parking zone. The prosecution alleged he refused, leading to a heated altercation between the duo.
It was further claimed that during a second encounter later that day, the businessman's son dashed his vehicle against the constable's knee. He then threatened to get the cop suspended from service, claiming his father was a "commissioner".
The man slapped the constable, grabbed her collar and also touched the woman inappropriately, the prosecution said.
In the case against the businessman's son filed on the constable's complaint, the court cited several inconsistencies and exaggerations and improvements" in the prosecution's evidence.
It noted that the version of the constable was not only inconsistent with the medical evidence, but also varies materially from the account given by an eyewitness.
"The improvements relating to the manner of assault, number of slaps, and nature of injuries create serious doubt about the correctness of the prosecution version," the court said.
It underlined that the testimony of an injured witness ordinarily carries great weight, but "even such evidence must pass the test of reliability and must be consistent with probabilities and medical evidence".
Where exaggeration is apparent and the witness attempts to magnify the incident, the court must seek corroboration before placing reliance, it asserted.
The sessions court judge highlighted that in the present case the "exaggerations are not minor embellishments".
They go to the root of the allegations forming the ingredients of sections 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant), 353 (criminal force against a public servant) and particularly section 354 (outraging modesty of a woman) of the IPC which requires proof of intention or knowledge, the court noted.
"When the foundational facts themselves become doubtful, the necessary intention cannot be safely inferred," it said.
"The improvements relating to the manner of assault, number of slaps, and nature of injuries create serious doubt about the correctness of the prosecution version," the court observed.
The judge highlighted that in defence version there was a sudden quarrel and that the accused also sustained injury, suggesting a mutual scuffle.
He pointed out that prosecution has not offered a satisfactory explanation regarding the injury to the accused (businessman's son).
The court, after assessing the evidence, held that it is possible that "in the heat of the moment both sides acted aggressively".
In the view of material inconsistencies, absence of trustworthy corroboration, doubtful medical support, and possibility of exaggeration, the court found it "unsafe" to hold the accused guilty.
The court acquitted the accused giving him the benefit of doubt.
Similarly in the alleged assault case against the constable, filed on the businessman's son's cross-complaint, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove her guilt.
In this matter too, Judge Navander found several inconsistencies that weakened the prosecution's case.
The court concluded that while a heated verbal altercation regarding parking did take place, there was no credible evidence that the man used filthy language, criminally intimidated, or physically harmed the complainant cop.
It then acquitted the businessman's son of charges under IPC sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) 504 (intentional insult) and 506 (criminal intimidation).
