New Delhi: No independent witnesses, inconsistencies in the statements of all prosecution witnesses, no video evidence, and a “suspicious prosecution plot”— a court in Agra has cited all these points to acquit Union Minister of State for Law and Justice S.P. Singh Baghel and 10 others in a seven-year-old case of alleged violation of Section 144 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
“In the present case, it is being reflected from the complete analysis of the evidence available on the file that no independent witness from the public has been examined by the prosecution to prove its plot, nor has any person from the public been called as a witness,” the court said in its order dated 27 February.
It asserted that all the witnesses are police personnel, and said the prosecution should have made serious and meaningful efforts to bring in independent witnesses from the public.
“It is clear from the evidence of all the above witnesses that no videography and photography of the spot was done, and no flag, banner, poster etc., was recovered from the spot. It has also been stated by the witnesses in their evidence that they do not recognise the accused. Moreover, it is noteworthy that, in the present case, the accused have not been arrested from the spot. There is a serious contradiction in the statements of the witnesses,” the court said.
According to the court order, the incident dates back to April 2016, when the Samajwadi Party’s Etmadpur Nagar president, Muslim Khan, was accused of thrashing and urinating on a backward-class vegetable vendor, Nirotam Singh Baghel, on 5 April. Subsequently, S.P. Singh Baghel allegedly warned that he would launch an agitation in Etmadpur if Khan and others accused were not arrested in the case.
At the time, an order was also issued under Section 144 by Etmadpur sub-divisional magistrate Purshottam Das Gupta on 31 March 2016, stating that the restrictions would apply from 1 April 2016 to 30 April 2016.
Gupta had told the court that he had issued an order restricting assembly of five or more people in a public place after he received information that there was a possibility of a breach of peace due to upcoming events, including Navratri, Dr Ambedkar Jayanti and Madarsa board exams.
However, the prosecution had alleged that the accused placed banners and loudspeakers in Agra on 11 April 2016, and gave speeches against Muslim Khan and other accused, violating the Section 144 order.
The case under IPC Section 188 (disobedience of order promulgated by a public servant) was filed against 38 accused and a chargesheet was filed on 25 June 2016.
Of the 38 accused, 25 had pleaded guilty, and the case against two others had been separated. The court was, therefore, now hearing the case only against 11 accused, including S.P. Singh Baghel.
According to a lawyer involved in the case, the trial took seven years because 38 people were accused, and due to the Covid-induced lockdown for over two years.
According to the order, it was only last year that the accused, including Baghel, appeared before the court and recorded their statement under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, calling the case “false” and demanding a trial.
Also Read: ‘Those who kill cows deemed to rot in hell’ — what Allahabad HC judge said in cow-slaughter case
‘Inspired by politics’
According to the prosecution, the then station house officer of Etmadpur police station, Brahm Singh, had orally given police officers information about Baghel’s intentions to hold a sit-in demanding the arrest of Khan and other accused for the incident.
Baghel had allegedly announced his intentions during a panchayat in the area on 8 April. Singh also claimed that all the accused in the Muslim Khan case were arrested by 10 April and Baghel and his supporters were duly informed through a notice about the status of the arrests and the fact that Section 144 had been imposed in the area.
However, the prosecution contended that despite this, Baghel organised a public meeting on 11 April 2016 on the Nagla Gangaram crossing of Station Road without permission. During the trial, the prosecution presented seven witnesses.
In response, the accused had contended that the complainant, Brahm Singh, had died on 15 December 2022 and that the prosecution had not explained how the meeting had been organised.
They also submitted that “in this technical world, there is no videography and photo of the assembly”. Asserting that the case is “inspired by politics”, they also pointed out that no independent witness from the public had been presented by the prosecution.
In response, among other things, the prosecution had asserted that it was not easy to get a public witness against “such a big politician”, and therefore, police witnesses are reliable in such cases.
Also Read: ‘History can’t haunt present’ — SC dismisses plea to rename roads, places named after ‘invaders’
‘Prosecution plot suspicious’
The court order examined all the witness statements and concluded that there were inconsistencies and contradictions in these statements.
For instance, one of the witnesses, Constable Manvendra Singh, had supported the prosecution case. However, on cross examination by the defence lawyer, he said that he did not know if the accused were present at the scene of the incident and was not aware whether the police had confiscated chairs and tables from the place of the alleged meeting.
The court also referred to witness statements to conclude that Baghel was not personally served with a notice related to the arrests of Muslim Khan and others, and about Section 144 being imposed in the district, as claimed by Brahm Singh.
Referring to the absence of any independent witnesses presented by the police, the court said, “Thus, it is clear from the evidence of the above witnesses available on the file that the testimony of public persons present/moving at the place of incident could have been important. But the police had not taken enough effort to take their statements.”
The court added that the “prosecution plot also seems suspicious” because the police had also not initiated any proceedings against independent people present or moving at the place of the incident, in case they refused to appear as witnesses in the case.
“The GD (general diary) of the departure of the police party from the police station has neither been presented nor proved, nor has the incident been videographed. There are serious contradictions in the statements of the witnesses examined by the prosecution,” the court added, ruling that the prosecution had failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt.
(Edited by Richa Mishra)
Also Read: SC rapped both Punjab govt & governor in row over summoning assembly. Here’s what law says