E-Paper
HC reverses conviction orders after 11 years, asks DGP to take action against cops
The Punjab and Haryana high court has reversed the conviction orders in two criminal cases registered by the Haryana Police and directed the director general of police (DGP) to initiate action against the cops, who investigated the FIRs
The Punjab and Haryana high court has reversed the conviction orders in two criminal cases registered by the Haryana Police and directed the director general of police (DGP) to initiate action against the cops, who investigated the FIRs.
Both the FIRs were born out of accidents in which two persons had died in road accidents. One Bhiwani FIR pertained to October 2007 in which one Salim was convicted by a trial court in 2011 and handed down one-and-a-half-year sentence. In the second FIR registered in Gurugram in November 2005, one Imamuddin was given two-year jail in 2011.
The convictions were upheld by the respective additional district and sessions courts, following which, they had moved high court.
The court observed that the “best incriminatory evidence for proving the charge against the accused, was withheld, by the prosecution”.
“Thus, the effect of the suppression of the afore evidence by the investigating officer concerned, is that, benefit of doubt, is to be given to the convict,” the court observed in one of the cases, adding that it deprecates the “slipshod, and, shoddy investigations” carried out into the FIRs and asked the high court registry to send verdicts to the DGP for his proceeding to initiate appropriate action against the investigating officers concerned.
In both the cases, it had come to light that the crime scenes were disturbed and correct position of the vehicles involved in the accidents were not depicted in both the cases.
In Imamuddin’s case, the investigating officer had though initially claimed that he had himself clicked photographs of the crime scene, in cross examination, he admitted to engaging someone else for this.
It also came to fore that the star witness roped in had admitted that they had arrived at the scene of accident after five minutes. Hence, they could not have seen how it took place and whether the accident was caused by the petitioner’s vehicle or by the one who died.
In Salim’s case, the court found that even though the prosecution claimed that the offending vehicle was being driven on the inappropriate side of the road, the scene of crime depictions did not support the same.
Also, two prime witnesses initially said the offending vehicle driver was driving in a negligent manner. But this fact was negated in cross examination.
