False implication: Chandigarh Sessions court sets aside conviction of constable, former SI
Ramkrishan Upadhyay
Chandigarh, October 23
Jaibir Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, has set aside an order convicting two UT police personnel for falsely implicating an advocate in an accident case registered 17 years ago.
The court remanded the case back to the trial court with the direction that the appellants be granted an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the complainant and decide the matter afresh.
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandigarh, in the order pronounced on December 21, 2022, convicted retired Sub Inspector Harbhajan Singh and one serving constable for falsely implicating an advocate in an accident case. The court had sentenced Harbhajan Singh to undergo two years of rigorous imprisonment after convicting him under Sections 167 (public servant framing an incorrect document), 211 (false charge of offence) and 220 of the IPC and imposed a fine of Rs 4,000. Constable Vijay Kumar was sentenced to undergo one year of rigorous imprisonment after being convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 167 and 211 of the IPC. The court had imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 on the convict.
The court pronounced the judgment on a complaint by advocate Gurpal Singh Bains of Kharar, who alleged both the accused had falsely implicated him in an FIR registered under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the IPC on June 3, 2006, over an alleged accident. The advocate claimed on June 3, 2006 his car was impounded at Maloya and he got it released on June 7. He alleged later the SI and the constable threatened to implicate him in the FIR.
He later moved the HC, which ordered reinvestigation into the case. The DSP South filed the report after reinvestigation and concluded that the complainant was falsely arrested. On its basis, the magistrate discharged Bains vide order dated August 22, 2008, from the case.
Harish Bhradwaj, counsel for the constable, argued that the trial court had passed the judgment on the basis of unreliable evidence. After hearing the arguments, the session court set aside the conviction, saying there was a flaw in the judgment as the compliance of Section 246(4) CrPC was not made by the magistrate.
