Thane: A court has acquitted five persons accused of assaulting police personnel in 2020, citing “glaring and irreconcilable” contradictions in testimonies, lack of medical proof or witnesses, missing duty records, and no evidence of common intention or pre-arranged plan.A sub-inspector and another policeman had alleged that one of the accused caught hold of their collars at the same time during the incident at Kalwa police station in Maharashtra’s Thane district on February 7, 2020.Pointing out the logical impossibility of the prosecution’s claims, Additional Sessions Judge V L Bhosale said, “This is physically impossible. One person cannot simultaneously catch the collars of two different persons. This contradiction is not on some minor or collateral matter, but goes to the very heart of the prosecution case – namely, who assaulted WHOM.”A copy of the order dated January 29 was made available on Monday.According to the prosecution, the accused entered the Kalwa police station, became aggressive and assaulted some security personnel.The accused — Chittaranjan Bharti, Pawan Kuril, Chandrakant Kuril, Rupali Kuril and Savita Kuril — faced charges under Indian Penal Code sections 353 (assault on a public servant), 504 (intentional insult), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 160 (affray).The case against the sixth accused, Kanchan Motilal Kuril, was abated as she died during the pendency of the trial.The defence lawyers punched holes in the prosecution’s case and challenged the charges against the accused.The court found the testimony of the four police witnesses to be riddled with “fatal defects”. It further noted the complete absence of any medical evidence, crucial in a case of assault.The court also pointed to a lack of documentary evidence to establish that the officers were on duty, as well as no duty roster and no station diary entries produced for the relevant time.In a case involving police officers as witnesses, production of the duty roster and related documents is essential, it said.On the charge of affray (Sec 160), the court said, “The word ‘fighting’ necessarily implies mutual combat -a situation where both sides are actively engaged in fighting with each other. One-sided assault or attack does not constitute ‘fighting’.”The prosecution failed to bridge the gap between “may be true” and “must be true”, it said, while granting the benefit of doubt to the accused.“The prosecution has completely failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt,” the judge said
