New Delhi: No independent witnesses, inconsistencies in the statements of all prosecution witnesses, no video evidence, and “suspected prosecution conspiracy” – an Agra court observed these reasons for acquitting Union Minister of State for Law and Justice SP Singh Baghel and 10 others. All the points have been cited in the seven-year-old case for alleged violation of Section 144 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
“In the present case, a complete analysis of the evidence available on file reflects that none of the independent witnesses from the public have been examined by the prosecution to prove its case, nor any individual from the public has been examined as a witness. have been called as witnesses,” the court said In its order dated 27 February.
It insisted that all witnesses were police personnel, and added that the prosecution should have made serious and meaningful efforts to bring independent witnesses from the public,
“It is clear from the evidence of all the above witnesses that no videography and photography of the spot was done nor any flag, banner, poster etc. was recovered from the spot. The witnesses have also stated in their evidence that they do not recognize the accused. The special thing is that in this case the accused have not been arrested from the spot. The court noted that there were serious contradictions in the statements of the witnesses.
According to the court order, the incident dates back to April 2016, when Muslim Khan, the Etmadpur city president of the Samajwadi Party, was arrested. accused Case of beating and urinating on backward class vegetable seller Nirotam Singh Baghel on 5th April. Following this, SP Singh Baghel reportedly warned that he would launch an agitation in Etmadpur if Khan and other accused in the case were not arrested.
At that time, an order under Section 144 was also issued by Etmadpur Sub-Divisional Magistrate Purushottam Das Gupta on 31 March 2016, stating that the restrictions would remain in force from 1 April 2016 to 30 April 2016.
Gupta had told the court that he had issued the order prohibiting the assembly of five or more people in a public place after receiving information about the possibility of breach of peace due to upcoming programs including Navratri, Dr. Ambedkar Jayanti and Madrassa Board. Examination
However, the prosecution had alleged that the accused had put up banners and loudspeakers in Agra on 11 April 2016 and made speeches against Muslim Khan and other accused in violation of the Section 144 order.
The case under IPC section 188 (disobedience to order promulgated by a public servant) was filed against 38 accused and the charge sheet was filed on 25 June 2016.
Of the 38 accused, 25 pleaded guilty and the case against two others was dropped. That’s why the court was now hearing the case against only 11 accused including SP Singh Baghel.
According to a lawyer associated with the case, the trial took seven years because 38 people were made accused, and more than two years because of the Covid-induced lockdown.
According to the order, only last year the accused including Baghel appeared before the court and recorded his statement under section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, calling the case “false” and seeking trial.
‘politically motivated’
According to the prosecution, Brahm Singh, the then SHO of Etmadpur police station, had verbally informed the police officers about Baghel’s intention to stage a sit-in demanding the arrest of Khan and other accused for the incident.
Baghel had reportedly announced his intention on April 8 during a panchayat in the area. Singh also claimed that all the accused in the Muslim Khan case had been arrested by April 10 and Baghel and his supporters were informed through a notice about the status of the arrests and the fact that sections of the IPC were in force in the area. 144 has been implemented.
However, the prosecution argued that despite this, Baghel organized a public meeting on April 11, 2016 at the Nagla Gangaram intersection on Station Road without permission. During the trial, the prosecution produced seven witnesses.
In reply, the accused had argued that the complainant, Brahm Singh had died on December 15, 2022 and the prosecution has not explained how the meeting was conducted.
He also submitted that “in this technological world, there is no videography and photographs of the assembly”. Stating that the case was “politically motivated”, he also pointed out that no independent witness from the public was produced by the prosecution.
In response, the prosecution had claimed, among other things, that it was not easy to get public witnesses against “such a big politician”, and therefore, police witnesses are reliable in such cases.
Read also: ‘History cannot exist’ – SC dismisses plea to rename roads, places after ‘invaders’
‘Prosecution conspiracy suspected’
The court order examined the statements of all the witnesses and concluded that there were inconsistencies and contradictions in these statements.
For example, one of the witnesses, Constable Manvendra Singh, supported the prosecution’s case. However, on cross-examination by the defense counsel, he stated that he did not know whether the accused were present at the spot and was not aware whether the police had seized the chairs and tables from the place of the alleged meeting or No.
The court also referred to the statements of witnesses to conclude that Baghel was not personally served notices regarding the arrest of Muslim Khan and others and the imposition of Section 144 in the district, as alleged by Brahm Singh. had claimed.
Referring to the absence of any independent witness produced by the police, the court observed, “Thus, it is clear from the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses available on file that the testimony of public persons present/running at the place of incident may Was. Important. But the police didn’t make enough effort to take his statement.”
The court noted that the “conspiracy of the prosecution also appears to be suspect” as the police had also not initiated any proceedings against the independent persons present at or passing through the scene of the incident, if they refused to appear as witnesses in the case. was refused.
The GD (General Diary) of the departure of the police team from the police station was neither produced nor proved, nor was the videography of the incident done. There are serious contradictions in the statements of the witnesses examined by the prosecution,” the court said, adding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
(Editing by Richa Mishra)