A local court has convicted two Chandigarh cops, including a retired sub-inspector, for implicating an advocate in an accident case in which a pedestrian was killed in 2006.
The court awarded retired sub-inspector Harbhajan Singh two-year jail with a fine of ₹4,000 while constable Vijay Kumar was sentenced to a year in jail and told to pay up ₹2,000 fine.
The case dates back to June 3, 2006, when an FIR was registered against advocate Gurpal Singh Bains of Sector 2, Kharar, on the insistence of Kumar who was posted at Bapu Dham Colony police post.
Bains alleged that while the said accident had taken place around 10.15pm on June 3, his car had been in the custody of Maloya police since 7pm.
He said his car had developed a snag near the masjid in Maloya on June 2, forcing him to abandon it there. The next day, it was taken into police custody and released only on June 7 following the sub-divisional magistrate’s order.
The complainant said that he had told SI Singh that his car was in the custody of Maloya police but the latter remained adamant on registering the case against him.
Police had stated in the FIR that it was a hit-and-run case, in which a pedestrian had later died and mentioned the registration number of the advocate’s car.
{{/usCountry}}Police had stated in the FIR that it was a hit-and-run case, in which a pedestrian had later died and mentioned the registration number of the advocate’s car.
{{/usCountry}}Bains had also written to the UT senior superintendent of police (SSP) before he approached the Punjab and Haryana high court, which ordered for a reinvestigation.
Deputy superintendent of police (DSP South), in 2008, had filed a report that the complainant was falsely arrested. The two cops had also allegedly approached the complainant and threatened him to take back his complaint, stating that they will implicate him in some other case if he doesn’t do so.
The two accused were chargesheeted for offences under Sections 211 (false charge of offence made with intent to injure), 220 (commitment for trial or confinement by person having authority who knows that he is acting contrary to law) and 167 (public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on May 3, 2013.
The defence counsel had alleged that the vehicle was in running condition so there are chances of the vehicle being on the spot. But the court observed that there is no chance that the vehicle was in the custody of the complainant during the time of the offence and there is no question of commission of the offence at the time of the mishap by the complainant. Both the accused had also denied threatening the lawyer.
The defence also alleged that no sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was made out but the court observed that no sanction is required to prosecute an ASI or SI-level police officer and sanction of the state government is not necessary and convicted them.
While pronouncing the quantum of sentence, the court observed that the complainant is an advocate who knows the legal procedures regarding the cases and he had approached the high court regarding reinvestigation and thereafter the inquiry was conducted. “It is not possible for an ordinary prudent man to save himself from the legal complications,” the court observed.
The court further observed that had the daily diary report (DDR) not been entered by the police, the complainant would have had no evidence to prove that he was not involved in the accident. The DDR was made around 11.45pm at the Sector 39 police station, in which the time when the vehicle was impounded was mentioned.
Meanwhile, the court also took note that except this case, there is no document on file regarding any doubt in the service career of either cop, and both have attended the trial regularly which has gone on for 12 years now and awarded the sentence.