HYDERABAD: It is not as though one would be convicted to a jail term, even if one attacks a policemen on duty. It might come as a surprise, but even while filing a chargesheet in a case in which they themselves are the victims, investigation officers do not seem to be very serious.
A city court, while delivering its verdict on March 2 this year, in a case where a drunken car driver hit a constable at a checkpoint under KPHB police station limits in 2016, acquitted the accused.
The court pointed out that the injured constable and his colleagues who were witnesses to the incident made 'inconsistent' statements. "In this case, all the witnesses have given inconsistent versions regarding their duty timings at the drunken drive checkpoint and also on the material particulars," it observed.
It also pointed to the six-month delay in filing the chargesheet in the case, from the date of completion of recording of the statements of the witnesses. The Investigating officer (IO) also did not give any reason for the delay.
During the trial, the victim told the court that immediately after the incident on November 11, 2016 he was shifted to a private hospital, where he was under treatment for two days and that he had lodged a complaint after he was discharged from hospital.
But the complaint copy produced before the court was dated November 11. "Thus lodging of the report has itself become doubtful. It appears that it was brought into existence as an afterthought," the court observed.
Further, the victim stated that he suffered a back injury and took treatment in one hospital, but the medical evidence showed that the victim did not sustain an injury on his back, and also denied that he was admitted as an in-patient in the hospital.
"The medical evidence conflicts with the version of constable which says he sustained injury on his back. Thus, the prosecution failed to establish that the constable sustained an injury," the court said.
The witnesses stated that the accused's car did not hit the barricades. "When the car did not hit the barricades, the possibility of the car hitting the victim, who was standing behind the barricades does not arise," the court said.