Lucknow: Contradictions in the testimony of prime witness Sana Siddiqui and inconsistencies between two medical examinations proved decisive in the acquittal of co-accused Sandeep Kumar on the charge of voluntarily causing hurt, a court observed while evaluating evidence in the Vivek Tiwari case.
Sandeep Kumar, one of the two policemen accused in the 2018 shooting of Apple executive Vivek Tiwari, was acquitted on Sept 17 of the offence under IPC Section 323. The allegation that Sandeep struck Sana on her arm with a stick surfaced later, first appearing in her second statement and then being reiterated in her statement under Section 164 CrPC and in her examination-in-chief. Police had chargesheeted him for allegedly assaulting Sana during the incident. The court noted that Sana did not accuse Sandeep of assault in the first information report. It also relied heavily on her first medical examination, conducted within hours of the incident, which recorded no visible external injury. However, the court found that this later version did not align with medical evidence. A second medical examination recorded four injuries, on Sana’s nose, chin and left forearm. The court observed that these findings were difficult to reconcile with Sana’s claim that she was hit once on the arm with a stick. It also took note of the fact that no stick was recovered from Sandeep; instead, an INSAS rifle was recovered from him. Further doubt arose during Sana’s cross-examination, when she stated that Kalpana Tiwari, the deceased’s wife, came to her residence the morning after the incident and that her hand struck Sana during an altercation. The court held that the possibility that the injuries noted in the second medical examination were caused during this later scuffle could not be ruled out.
Investigating officer Vikas Pandey also acknowledged that Sana had not reported any stick assault at the time of her first medical examination. Citing the absence of the allegation in the FIR, conflicting medical evidence, an alternative explanation for the injuries and non-recovery of the alleged weapon, the court held the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.