Mumbai: In a judgment addressing the power dynamics between law enforcement and the public, a sessions court on Monday acquitted a now 37-year-old businessman accused of assaulting and outraging the modesty of a female traffic cop over parking dispute at Babulnath Road in 2011. In separate judgement, the judge also acquitted the female traffic constable, 38, after the businessman too filed a case claiming she had assaulted him during the dispute. The cross cases were registered at Gamdevi police station. The legal battle, which spanned nearly 15 years, concluded with the judge finding that both sides had presented exaggerated versions of the incident. In the case where the businessman was the accused, the judge found that the prosecution’s version was marred by “exaggerated and coloured evidence” and a visible “zeal to convict the accused and to teach him a lesson.““The purpose of law is not to punish the citizen merely challenging the authority of public servant but to prevent actual menace which cause real obstruction and hindrance in performing the duties by the public servants,” said judge Satyanarayan R Navander. The conflict began on the morning of March 30, 2011, when the man, the son of a prominent businessman, stopped his car near a building at Babulnath Road to pick up a friend. A traffic constable on duty, instructed him to move. While the initial interaction was brief, a second encounter an hour later escalated into a physical altercation. The woman alleged that the man intentionally hit her knee with his car, slapped her, and outraged her modesty. The man claimed that the woman punched him in the eye through his car window and continued to assault him after he alighted from the vehicle.The judge observed significant inconsistencies in the depositions provided by both accused and victims. In the judgment acquitting the traffic constable, the court noted that the businessman’s friend, cited as a key witness, did not actually see the alleged punch. In the judgement where the businessman was the accused, the judge observed that the investigating officer had initially refused to address his grievance, hence, such investigation cannot be said to be impartial one. The judgment further noted the inherent vulnerability of a private citizen when pitted against the state machinery. “…a citizen accused of having obstructed or assaulted a police officer, stands in a comparatively vulnerable position. The power dynamics between the parties and the immediate control of the scene by the police requires the court to ensure that criminal law is not used as a tool of retaliation,” said the judge.
