01 September,2026 07:52 AM IST | Mumbai | Vinod Kumar Menon
Mumbai’s Islam Gymkhana. File pic
A flawed police probe has ended in the acquittal of 23-year-old driver Dhruv Pandey, accused of assaulting a man with a cement block at Mumbai's Islam Gymkhana. The Esplanade court recently held that while the prosecution proved Sudesh Sadanand Tambe was injured, it failed to establish that Pandey was the person who assaulted him beyond reasonable doubt.
The acquittal comes against Maharashtra's push for scientific, forensic, digital and electronic evidence in criminal investigations, with Chief Minister and Home Minister Devendra Fadnavis saying in November 2025 that the state's conviction rate had risen to 53 per cent and could reach 90 per cent under the new criminal laws, which recognise digital and electronic evidence and promote forensic examination.
In Pandey's case, CCTV footage was not proved in accordance with law and was excluded from evidence, while the absence of medical evidence further weakened the prosecution's case. The judgment, delivered on August 10, 2026, by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Rohini S Bhosale (Narsale), arose from Marine Drive police station CR No. 89/2026.
Pandey was facing trial for allegedly causing hurt by striking Tambe on the forehead with a cement block. The punishment for this is up to three years' imprisonment, a fine of up to R20,000, or both, Identity unproved
The court found that the prosecution had established that Tambe suffered an injury in an assault involving a stone or cement block. However, it failed to prove that Pandey was the assailant.
[popcorn number="Eleven" desc="Number of witnesses listed by prosecution; only five were examined" class="Default"]
According to the prosecution case, informant Prakash Jadhav, a resident of Palghar who works as a gardener at Islam Gymkhana, normally stayed at the gymkhana pavilion whenever work kept him there late.
On the night of March 18, 2026, a day-night cricket match being played at the club continued until 11 pm. Jadhav and his cousin Sudesh Tambe decided to stay there after the match. After dinner, Tambe was listening to music while Jadhav went to sleep.
Around 1.15 am, Jadhav was awakened by cries from his cousin. He found Tambe bleeding from his forehead. An unevenly shaped cement block was found lying there. The prosecution alleged that an unknown person had assaulted Tambe. He was taken to GT Hospital, following which Jadhav lodged the police complaint.
The court gave considerable weight to evidence of Jadhav and Tambe as they were the informant and injured victim, respectively. Their versions were broadly consistent about and both spoke about an unknown person assaulting Tambe with a stone or cement block, causing injury to his forehead. The court accepted that the prosecution had proved the FIR and established the use of the cement block, which was produced in court. But Jadhav and Tambe were unable to identify the assailant and the FIR was registered against an unknown person. The court said the evidence established an assault had occurred, but did not establish that Pandey had committed it.
The prosecution's case against Pandey ultimately rested heavily on CCTV footage.
According to the police report, footage from the location had allegedly revealed the accused's identity. The prosecution examined panch witness Ashish Kumar Yadav and the investigating officer regarding seizure of the footage. A manager, Ankush Sawant, allegedly supplied a CD containing the CCTV footage, and the seizure was documented through a panchnama.
But the court held that mere seizure of the CD was not enough.
On examining the record, the court found that the prosecution had not proved the contents of the electronic record in accordance with law. The CCTV material therefore could not be treated as evidence.
The prosecution had listed 11 witnesses but examined only five before closing its evidence.
The accused did not lead any defence evidence. His defence was one of total denial and false implication.
The court answered the principal point for determination in the negative, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove that Pandey had voluntarily caused hurt to Tambe by hitting him with a cement block.
Accordingly, the court acquitted Pandey.
During final arguments, defence counsel Kasturi Pandey argued that no independent witness had identified the accused and that there was nothing on record establishing his involvement in the offence. The defence contended that the prosecution had failed to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt and sought acquittal.
The prosecution, represented by Assistant Public Prosecutor Sarika Raut, argued that the witnesses had supported its case and that their testimony, together with the spot and seizure evidence, was sufficient to establish guilt. It sought conviction and harsh punishment.
. The FIR was initially against an unknown person
. Neither informant nor victim identified accused
. No direct evidence linking Pandey to assault
. CCTV evidence not legally proved, couldn't be relied on
. Medical evidence was not available on record
. These deficiencies meant material ingredients of the charge had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt
Attempts made to contact Jitendra Kadam, Senior PI, Marine Drive police station, for his reaction to the acquittal did not yield any result.
