CCTV excluded, identity unproved as Mumbai court acquits driver in assault case

A flawed police probe has ended in the acquittal of 23yearold driver Dhruv Pandey accused of assaulting a man with a cement block at Mumbairsquos 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 doubtThe acquittal comes against Maharashtrarsquos 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 statersquos 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 examinationCCTV excludedIn Pandeyrsquos case CCTV footage was not proved in accordance with law and was excluded from evidence while the absence of medical evidence further weakened the prosecutionrsquos 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 892026Pandey 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 yearsrsquo imprisonment a fine of up to R20000 or both Identity unprovedThe 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 assailantpopcorn numberEleven descNumber of witnesses listed by prosecution only five were examined classDefaultAssault followed latenight cricket matchAccording 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 lateOn the night of March 18 2026 a daynight 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 sleepAround 115 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 complaintEyewitnesses support assault notThe 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 itCCTV became crucial linkThe prosecutionrsquos case against Pandey ultimately rested heavily on CCTV footageAccording to the police report footage from the location had allegedly revealed the accusedrsquos 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 panchnamaBut the court held that mere seizure of the CD was not enoughOn 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 evidenceFive prosecution witnesses examinedThe prosecution had listed 11 witnesses but examined only five before closing its evidenceThe accused did not lead any defence evidence His defence was one of total denial and false implicationCourt acquits accusedThe 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 blockAccordingly the court acquitted PandeylsquoProsecution failed to establish identityrsquoDuring 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 acquittalThe 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 punishmentThe court noted that 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 couldnrsquot be relied on Medical evidence was not available on record These deficiencies meant material ingredients of the charge had not been proved beyond reasonable doubtOther sideAttempts made to contact Jitendra Kadam Senior PI Marine Drive police station for his reaction to the acquittal did not yield any result