Former MLA Vipin Wankhede Acquitted In 2020 Case Of Obstructing Police Duty

Indore (Madhya Pradesh): The Special MP-MLA Court acquitted former MLA Vipin Wankhede and seven others in a 2020 case registered at Barod police station in Agar-Malwa district for allegedly obstructing government work, threatening police personnel and misbehaving with public servants.

Delivering its judgment on July 28, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

It observed that the evidence and records on file did not establish that the accused had actually obstructed official duty or used criminal force against police personnel.

In a significant observation, the court ruled that merely questioning, arguing with or protesting before a police officer does not amount to obstructing public duty.

It clarified that an offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code is made out only when there is evidence of assault or criminal force used to deter a public servant from performing official duties. A verbal exchange or disagreement alone cannot attract the offence.

During the trial, the court examined CCTV footage and other documentary evidence. It found no visual evidence of the accused pushing, assaulting or using force against the then station house officer or other police personnel, weakening the prosecution's case.

The court also expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of the police investigation, observing that the available evidence was insufficient to sustain the charges.

Consequently, all eight accused were given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.

The case stemmed from a complaint lodged on Nov 23, 2020, alleging that then MLA Vipin Wankhede and his supporters had reached Barod police station, opposed police action, obstructed official work and threatened policemen.

Defence counsel Ashish S Sharma said the prosecution's evidence did not match the actual sequence of events and argued that Wankhede had merely questioned police conduct in his capacity as a public representative.

He said treating such intervention in public interest as a criminal act would be contrary to democratic principles.