Behind Vijayvargiya son’s acquittal, hostile star witness, lapses in probe

Vijayvargiya, the MLA from Indore-3 astatine the time, was arrested connected June 26, 2019, implicit allegations that helium deed Indore Municipal Corporation serviceman Dhirendra Singh Bais with a bat during an anti-encroachment drive.

A video drawback of Akash Vijayvargiya purportedly wielding the bat.

The lawsuit had enactment the BJP — which astatine the clip was successful the absorption successful Madhya Pradesh — connected the backmost ft arsenic the Kamal Nath-led Congress authorities promised to convict Vijayvargiya. In the 2023 assembly elections, Akash was not fielded from Indore-3, and had to marque mode for his father, elder BJP person Kailash Vijayvargiya.

The prosecution had relied connected videos and testimonies of municipal officials to physique what it thought was a watertight case.

Bais, who was a zonal serviceman and gathering inspector posted with the anti-encroachment squad astatine the time, was the prima witness. The prosecution had argued that helium turned hostile owed to a two-year hold successful his cross-examination, which was held connected February 18, 2022 and September 8, 2022.

The tribunal noted that the “prosecution did not question immoderate clarification oregon situation the contradictory statements made by the witness”.

As per the constabulary complaint, connected June 26, 2019, Bais turned up with respective Indore Municipal Corporation officials to demolish buildings designated arsenic dangerous, pursuing the orders of the Additional District Magistrate. It was alleged that Vijayvargiya turned up astatine the tract with his supporters and asked municipal officials to permission wrong 10 minutes.

The prosecution alleged that Vijayvargiya “came with a bat and started hitting Bais” and “ten of his associates besides began kicking and punching him”.

As per the prosecution, Bais identified the “individuals who assaulted him astatine the country by watching the video footage” astatine MG Road constabulary station, and signed an recognition memo too.

During his grounds successful court, Bais identified Vijayvargiya based connected a acceptable of photographs and a video, shown by the prosecution, arsenic the “individual successful the bluish garment with the bat”. He besides said that erstwhile helium turned around, the bat had already struck his leg.

During cross-examination connected February 18, 2022, however, Bais said that successful the video, “hundreds of people, including constabulary officers, were present, and it was unclear who was pushing and shoving”. He besides accepted the proposition of the defence squad that “there was nary photograph of Akash Vijayvargiya hitting with a bat”.

Bais besides accepted that successful the video, erstwhile the “bat appeared to deed his leg, helium was talking connected the phone, and galore people, including constabulary officers, were contiguous astatine the scene”.

He stated that astatine the time, “his afloat attraction was connected the mobile phone, and helium could not spot who caused the injury”.

Bais besides stated that “3 to 4 radical lasting down him were holding bats” and “one of them indispensable person deed him with a bat”. He said Vijayvargiya was identified arsenic the assailant since “he was the closest”.

Raj Thakur, different witnesser who was the in-charge supervisor (civil) and was contiguous astatine the site, told the tribunal helium “did not spot anyone hitting him (Bais) with a bat”.

Video called into question

Vijayvargiya’s ineligible squad had besides argued that the “videos shown successful tribunal were fake and that the idiosyncratic holding the bat was not Akash Vijayvargiya but idiosyncratic other with Akash’s look imposed connected the video”.

Bais told the tribunal that helium had handed implicit a pen thrust containing videos to the police, which were gathered “from societal media and different sources”.

During cross-examination, Bais said the “videos archetypal surfaced connected societal media, but helium did not cognize who made them, which instrumentality was used, oregon who uploaded them”.

During cross-examination, helium said helium “cannot talk to the authenticity of the said photos/videos and cannot accidental who primitively created the videos contained successful the pen drive”.

“However, specified videos tin beryllium altered oregon modified,” helium said during cross-questioning by the defence team.

The tribunal said it was “necessary to either contiguous the archetypal instrumentality that created the photos/videos earlier the tribunal oregon supply a certified transcript nether Section 65B of the Evidence Act”. However, successful this case, it is “unproven who made the photos/videos”, the tribunal said.

The tribunal besides remarked that Investigating Officer Prahlad Singh Khandate “failed to authenticate the truthfulness of the photos/videos contained successful the pen drives” and “despite being the probe officer, helium could not corroborate who, when, and done which instrumentality the photos/videos successful the pen drives were created”. “As a result, the beingness of the accused individuals astatine the transgression country and their engagement successful the transgression could not beryllium proven done his testimony,” the tribunal said.

The tribunal said the “prosecution has wholly failed to beryllium the authenticity of the photos/videos” and “it is astonishing that the prosecution did not behaviour immoderate forensic introspection of the videos”.

IO Khandate besides told the tribunal that helium arrived astatine the country 2 hours later. The recognition of the accused came nether uncertainty aft helium “admitted that during the investigation, helium did not behaviour immoderate recognition process with the complainant (Bais) by taking him to the jail”.

The IO besides admitted that the “bat was not seized from immoderate idiosyncratic by him”, and that the “place from wherever the bat was seized was a nationalist country wherever anyone could travel and go”.

Virendra Kumar Upadhyay, who was the Assistant Removal Officer, during cross-examination agreed with the statement that the “seized bat was an mean cricket bat, and specified a bat could beryllium owned by anyone who plays cricket”.

After the proceedings ended, the bat was “deemed worthless” and the tribunal ordered it to beryllium “destroyed if nary entreaty is filed”.