Thane: The Additional Sessions Court in Thane has acquitted a 55-year-old man accused of allegedly obstructing a Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) staff during the enforcement of Covid-19 lockdown restrictions in April 2020, after the prosecution failed to produce essential supporting evidence in the case.
While acquitting the man, the court held that in the absence of any independent witness, it would be unsafe to rely solely on the complainant’s testimony to hold the accused guilty.
Background of the Case
The prosecution’s case dates back to April 2020, during the lockdown, when the complainant, Jitendra Sable, a clerk with the TMC, alleged that the accused, Anwar Mir Sayyad, interfered with officials performing patrolling duties in Amrut Nagar, Mumbra.
.jpg)
Authorities claimed that Sayyad prevented them from implementing prohibitory orders issued by the District Magistrate and the Police Commissioner during the pandemic.
“Sable, along with other staff, was patrolling in Thane city to enforce the order. However, on April 9, 2020, at around 10:45 a.m., the accused was selling vegetables despite the restraining orders. He repeated the same behavior the next day,” the prosecution alleged. The accused was booked under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
Court Observations on Investigation Lapses
The court noted several gaps in the investigation, including the absence of statements from other officials present at the scene, lack of CCTV footage, and no documentary proof of patrolling duty.
Also Watch:
“The prosecution has not recorded evidence of the complainant’s colleagues who accompanied him at the time of the alleged incident. The Investigating Officer (IO) has not collected documentary evidence showing the patrolling duty done by the complainant along with his colleagues on the aforesaid dates, times, and places. There is no independent eyewitness to the alleged incident. The IO has not collected CCTV footage from the area showing the presence of the accused and complainant at the spot. The evidence of the complainant requires corroboration either by ocular evidence or documentary evidence,” the court observed.
