PSI fails to give his job proof, 2 acquitted in Ahmedabad

AHMEDABAD: A local court has cleared two persons of charges of assaulting a traffic cop after the prosecution did not furnish proof of employment for the police officer, who alleged that he was assaulted during a traffic drive.
According to the case details, the incident took place on August 19, 2017, at Bhadaj Circle, when a team of A-division traffic police was carrying out a drive. At around 11 pm, they stopped a car which did not bear the registration number on its front side.
Two brothers – Hariom and Gautam Acharya – got out of the car and entered into an argument with the traffic cops. PSI Rameshcharndra G Yadav, in charge traffic PSI, issued a fine memo after which the brothers allegedly assaulted him and crumpled up the memo.
The brothers were taken to the Sola police station and booked under Sections 186, 332 and 144 of IPC for obstructing a public servant from performing his duty and for hurting him. Five years later, a magisterial court on Mirzapur rural court campus examined the witnesses, mostly police witnesses, including Yadav who is the complainant.
While all the cops narrated the incident as mentioned in the FIR in their examination-in-chief, their statements appeared at variance, particularly about the condition of fine memo, which was allegedly crumpled up by the accused; and about the torn clothes of the PSI following a skirmish with the accused persons.
The court noted that the investigators did not record statements of any of the independent witnesses about the incident that took place at Bhadaj Circle.
However, the most important thing that the court said was this: In order to press charges under Section 332 of IPC, the prosecution should prove that the complainant is a public servant and was assaulted while s/he was performing official duty.
However, no such evidence has been placed before the court in this case.
The court recorded in its order that an investigator revealed in her cross-examination that Yadav’s appointment letter showing him as a PSI and traffic in-charge of A-Division was not part of the probe papers.
Besides, it said that the complainant also failed to prove that he was assaulted while performing official duty.