New Delhi, Jul 22 A Delhi court has acquitted former Laxmi Nagar MLA Nitin Tyagi in a 2019 case in which he was accused of manhandling DDA contract workers who were assigned to work for restoration and rejuvenation of the Yamuna floodplain.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Neha Mittal, who said that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against Tyagi beyond a reasonable doubt, deprecated the manner in which the defence counsel had called a key witness outside the courtroom, saying the conduct has "shaken the conscience of this court".
The case stems from a 2019 FIR lodged in Laxmi Nagar police station. It alleged that Tyagi, the then MLA of the area, came to the site where the restoration work was being carried out on November 29, 2019, and along with his associates, he manhandled workers, tore up government site plans and threatened officials to stop them from removing encroachers from the floodplain.
In January this year, charges had been framed against the former legislator under IPC sections 427 (mischief causing damage of Rs 50 or more ), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 186 (voluntarily obstructing a public servant) and 34 (common intention)
In its 19-page verdict pronounced on Tuesday, the court said none of the prosecution witnesses made a "whisper of any allegations" against Tyagi regarding obstructing public servants, and, during the questioning, the site engineer denied that Tyagi slapped either him or his colleague, a supervisor.
It said that prosecution witness 2 (site engineer) deposed that a physical altercation took place between him and the crowd, but his knowledge about the fact that the accused was also part of the crowd is based on what he heard from the DDA officials and hence, can easily be categorised as hearsay.
“Had the witness identified the accused in the court as one of the persons present on the spot on the day of the incident, the prosecution case might have been successful. But he even failed to identify the accused present in the court,” the magistrate said.
Regarding the offence of causing mischief, the court again said that the two crucial witnesses, the site engineer and the supervisor, denied the suggestion that the accused tore the site plan.
Acquitting Tyagi, the court said, “Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, this court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the accused Nitin Tyagi and holds the accused not guilty of commission of said offences."
Before concluding the judgment, the magistrate took a stern view of an incident involving the defence counsel, saying, “This court would like to express its deprecation for the conduct of the counsel appearing for the accused in the present matter.”
She underlined that the legislature, in its wisdom, has tried to incorporate all possible safeguards for protecting witnesses from any kind of influence, including provisions discouraging adjournments for the cross-examination of witnesses, and this was reiterated by the Supreme Court in its various judgments.
“Despite this, the witnesses remain vulnerable to influence or threats at the instance of the opposite party/accused. In the present case, a court question was put to prosecution witness 6 (supervisor) if he was called outside the courtroom before the proceedings in the matter,” the magistrate said.
She noted that the supervisor answered that the defence counsel's clerk had taken him outside the courtroom before the proceedings, where the counsel asked him if he had met prosecution witness 2 (site engineer), and by that time the proceedings commenced, and he came inside.
“Though no such conversation probably took place between the witness and the counsel which could be termed as ‘influence’ or ‘threat’, but the manner in which the witness was called outside the courtroom at the behest of the counsel for the accused is at the least deplorable,” the magistrate said.
“Such conduct on the part of the counsel, who is also an officer of the court, has shaken the conscience of this court. While exercising restraint, this court ends the judgment with the hope that such conduct will be taken care of by the counsel for the accused in future,” she added.
