Maharashtra News: Vasai’s Esplanade Court Acquits 36-Year-Old Labourer In Assault Case Due To Lack Of Evidence, Witness Contradictions

Mumbai: The First Class Judicial Magistrate (JMFC) at Vasai’s Esplanade Court has acquitted a labourer, Santosh Vasant Ranjane (36), of all charges in connection with an assault case registered against him in 2023.

The court acquitted the accused on the grounds of inconsistencies in witness testimonies, lack of material evidence, and shortcomings in the police investigation.

Ranjane was booked under Sections 326 (causing grievous hurt with dangerous weapons), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.

The case was filed after a complaint by one Santkumar Pandit, who alleged that on August 21, 2023, Ranjane had struck Bipinkumar Pandey, a co-worker, with an iron rod after a verbal dispute over spilled drainage water during unloading work. Pandey reportedly sustained a head injury and lost consciousness.

Advocate Anirudh Yadav, who appeared pro bono on behalf of the NGO ‘Dard Se Humdard Tak’—which assists undertrial prisoners unable to represent themselves in court—told FPJ, “During the trial, the court found several discrepancies. Notably, the prosecution failed to submit CCTV footage from the area despite the presence of surveillance cameras. Furthermore, no seizure of the weapon or proof of the spot panchnama was submitted, undermining the investigation’s credibility. Meanwhile, the medical evidence presented by Dr. Shirsat confirmed that the injury was grievous and fresh, but the court noted that without the doctor’s corroborative testimony on how the injury was inflicted, the certificate alone did not prove the accused’s involvement beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The court also highlighted contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, most of whom were related to the victim. Their statements were found to be inconsistent under cross-examination, casting doubt on their reliability.

On the charges of verbal abuse and criminal intimidation, the court found no evidence of specific words or threats that could constitute offences under Sections 504 or 506. Neither the FIR nor the testimonies provided sufficient detail to establish these accusations.

“In the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, this Court holds that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt,” the order stated.