In less serious offences, the law allows for compounding of the offence, which in this instance, would have meant that the accused would have paid a higher amount of fine and not faced trial for riding a bike without a helmet. (Representational Image)

A sessions court, in a recent order, has acquitted a doctor and his wife, who were booked in 2017 for allegedly assaulting two traffic police personnel during a drive to penalise helmetless riders. The court observed that the police had “exceeded their jurisdiction by immediately trying to arrest the accused”, in contravention with Supreme Court directions to issue a notice before arrest when the offence is punishable up to seven years. The court also observed that while the penalty amount for riding without helmet was Rs 100, the police had insisted on Rs 500 as payment of the fine from the couple to compound the offence against them.

“Compounding is a voluntary act on part of the accused. He may or may not compound the offence and would opt for going for trial. Under no circumstances (informant policeman) could have compelled any of the accused to pay compounding charges. If the accused were not ready to pay the compounding charges, he could have issued them challan for appearing in the court to face the trial,” the court said in the order.

In less serious offences, the law allows for compounding of the offence, which in this instance, would have meant that the accused would have paid a higher amount of fine and not faced trial for riding a bike without a helmet.

Dr Ekram Patel and his wife Sana were booked under charges, including sections 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty) and 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant) of the Indian Penal Code along with relevant sections of the Motor Vehicle Act at Nirmal Nagar police station on July 6, 2017, attracting a maximum punishment of three years if found guilty.

According to the prosecution, at Kherwadi junction, a drive was on to check those riding a two-wheeler without a helmet. The police had claimed that a woman, riding a bike with a man sitting pillion, reached the checkpoint and, as they were not wearing helmets, a sub-inspector ordered them to pay the fine.

The police claimed that the woman then offered them a bribe and when the police officer did not accept it, she started hurling abuses at them. Following this, the two allegedly assaulted police officials when they tried arresting them. In the tussle, a woman constable allegedly got scratches on her left arm, and the accused doctor allegedly pulled the sub-inspector’s collar, leaving him with scratch marks on his neck.

During the trial, however, discrepancies were noted in the statements of the police officials and it was not established who was riding the bike. The defence also stated that the police had registered a false complaint against the couple and manipulated evidence, altering the timing of the incident to suit their case as they realised that the accused was a doctor and could file a counter-complaint against them.

The court observed that there were contradictions in police statements, which “created a doubt on their reliability”. It also observed that it was brought on record that though the accused tried lodging a complaint, it was not filed.

The court also relied on medical evidence, which showed that the injuries were caused as the accused had tried holding on to each other when the police apprehended them. A medical expert also deposed that the accused doctor’s medical check-up after the incident showed an uneven ECG report, which can be caused due to an assault.

“It is not a case of prosecution that the custody of the accused was required for recovery of any articles, weapons, etc. Neither prosecution has seized or produced any articles which shows that their immediate arrest was required. Despite this, (the two police officials) directed arrest of both the accused which is in contravention of the directions issued by the Honourable Supreme Court…” the court stated.