3 days ago
‘False accusations can cause damage to reputation': Delhi AAP MLA Anil Jha acquitted of charges under SC/ST Act
A Delhi court on Saturday acquitted Aam Aadmi Party's (AAP) Kirari MLA Anil Jha in a case where he was charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act).
Complainant, Sanjay Kumar, a BJP member, had alleged that on February 28, 2016, during an annual function at Awadh Public School in the capital, Jha, along with other accused people, had hurled casteist slurs directed towards him. He had also alleged that Jha had manhandled him.
Special Judge Jitendra Singh of Rouse Avenue Court, in his order dated May 31, said that the complainant has attempted to attribute a criminal colour to what was, 'in essence, a verbal altercation' between him and the accused due to their respective political affiliations and activities.
'It is not unusual in such circumstances for the incident to be exaggerated, with the apparent intention of falsely implicating the accused in a more serious offence, thereby attempting to invoke stringent provisions such as the SC/ST Act,' Judge Singh said.
'The IO (Investigating Officer) is expected to keep in mind that false accusations have far-reaching consequences, as they may result in the prosecution and conviction of innocent persons. The falsely accused person may suffer considerable societal stigma, damage to reputation and psychological harm, even when a determination ultimately occurs that the accuser accidentally or deliberately made a false accusation,' said the judge.
He also stated that the Investigating Officer failed to produce a copy of CD containing the video clip of the alleged incident despite multiple opportunities. '…the most clinching evidence at the hand of the investigating agency was the video clip of the alleged incident…The CD containing the video clip was filed along with the charge sheet. However, the said CD could not be played in the Court… This Court never had the opportunity to go through the video clip,' Judge Singh noted.
To prove its case, the prosecution, which was represented in the court by Additional Public Prosecutor Manish Rawat, had primarily examined three witnesses. The court, however, rejected their testimonies and held that the testimonies did 'not lend credence to the case of the prosecution'.
