Badgeri had told the court that while she was trying to show More the insurance papers of her vehicle on her cellphone, the constable thought that she was taking her photograph.A 43-YEAR-OLD woman, who was booked in 2016 for assaulting a traffic constable after being stopped for not wearing a helmet, was acquitted earlier this week with the sessions court observing that the accused had sustained injuries that the police had not been able to explain.
An FIR was registered against Ghatkopar resident Asha Badgeri on March 21, 2016, on charges, including assault on public servant, based on a complaint filed by Trupti More, a constable with the Vikhroli traffic department.
More had alleged that she had stopped Badgeri, who was riding a two-wheeler on the wrong side of the road without wearing a helmet, and asked her to pay a fine. Badgeri, however, allegedly went on to slap her. Following this, More filed a complaint with the Pant Nagar police.
Witnesses, including More, a police personnel who was present at the incident spot and a passerby, were examined by the court.
Badgeri had told the court that while she was trying to show More the insurance papers of her vehicle on her cellphone, the constable thought that she was taking her photograph. A scuffle ensued and her phone fell on the ground. Badgeri had claimed that More hit her with a pen and she sustained injuries to her hand.
“All prosecution witnesses… are absolutely silent regarding the injuries sustained by the accused… Non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused creates doubt in the case of prosecution and leads to an inference that the prosecution has tried to suppress the origin and genesis of the crime,” the court observed on Tuesday.
It added that while medical reports of the accused were placed on record showing that she was injured, the constable has been silent regarding the same. “PW 1 (More) has deposed regarding the fact that the accused gave one slap to her but she is absolutely silent regarding the injuries on the person of accused and therefore her testimony cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by an independent source (sic),” the court said.
It added that the testimony of the only eyewitness present at the spot could also not be relied upon, as it was doubtful whether he was present there at the time of the incident. Moreover, a senior police officer, who had come to the incident spot to resolve the issue, and was a material witness, was not examined, the court said.
It added that the police have not explained why CCTV camera footage from the spot was not presented before it as evidence. While maintaining that the constable was not made to undergo medical examination to prove that she was also injured, the court said that no documents or copies of station diary entry were presented to it to prove that she was on duty at the spot at the time of the incident.
The court held that facts like the accused had touched the constable’s nameplate and drove on the wrong side of the road were not mentioned in the FIR, showing that she had attempted to “improve” the case.
Badgeri was acquitted of all charges, including sections 353 (assault on public servant to obstruct her from discharging her duties) and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the IPC as well as the Motor Vehicles Act.
