A Mumbai court on Thursday acquitted four activists of the Republican Party of India (Athawale group) accused in an attempt to murder case. The group had allegedly attempted to murder a party functionary during a protest in Azad Maidan in March 2017.
The party workers gathered at Azad Maidan in 2017 during a demonstration organised to demand a CBI probe into the killing of Ambedkarite scholar Dr Krishna Kirwale. According to the prosecution, after the protest was over, when the party workers were returning, accused Vishal Manohar Diwar, Vishal Rahul Jonjal, Vishal Pandurang Gaikwad and Shirish Dhondiram Chikhalkar had attacked complainant Sopan Kamble, then president of RPI (A)’s South Mumbai zone, for opposing their call to stage a rasta roko at CST.
According to the FIR, kerosene was poured on Kamble and an attempt was made to set him ablaze. His wife and another activist were said to have intervened and saved him. The four were booked under Sections 307 (attempt to murder) and 504 (intentional insult) along with Section 34 IPC.
During the trial, however, most independent witnesses turned hostile.
The court found significant contradictions between the testimonies of Kamble and his wife. While Kamble claimed a lit matchstick was brought close to him, his wife stated only that a matchbox was held and taken away.
“Her testimony is inherently inconsistent with that of the informant on the crucial point regarding an accused lighting a matchstick,” observed Additional Sessions Judge Satyanarayan Navander.
Advocates Anoop Kumar Pal, Vasant Prabhu and Sunil Pandey, appearing for the four accused, pointed to the fact that no burnt matchstick was recovered by the police nor did they find any reference in the spot panchnama done by the police. The court agreed with this issue and also observed that medical reports showed no injuries.
Calling the incident “more of a political stunt than an attempt to commit murder,” the court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
“All the accused stand acquitted when the possibility of false implication arises from the prosecution evidence, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused,” the judge said.
– Ends