HYDERABAD: Both the convicts had presented to the court that the police officers had a malafide intention against them in the cases. Police constable Jella Prakasham of Sangareddy district had even stated that VC Sajjanar, the then Police Commissioner of Cyberabad Commissionerate, attended the court trial on every date and tutored the witnesses, but the court dismissed his contentions saying that he is an encounter specialist, he cannot ask for a benefit of doubt.
In response to Prakasham’s contention that the witnesses were under influence, the court stated that they supported the case and there is no such material to show that they were under pressure and their testimony is also not shaken by way of cross-examination.
When questioned about Sajjanar’s presence during the trial, the court opined that the duty of the Investigation Officer is to verify the process of prosecution at the time of trial, more particularly in cases of heinous offences for the purpose of controlling crime in the society. In the case of Home Guard Botla Mallikarjuna of Hyderabad City Police, the court stated that the accused is a person working in the police department as Home Guard, who is expected to safeguard the life and safety of the public.
When he defended that a false case was filed, the court dismissed them saying, nothing except allegations was put forth to substantiate this. Even when he pleaded for a lenient view with regard to the quantum of sentence, stating that he has two daughters, the court stated that a lenient view cannot be taken as the offence against a differently-abled minor victim girl is heinous in nature.