Air India assault case: Delhi court discharges ex-Shiv Sena MP Ravindra Gaikwad, accused of hitting employee with slipper

Former Lok Sabha Member of Parliament and Shiv Sena politician Ravinder Gaikwad has been discharged in a case where he was accused of assaulting an Air India employee in 2017..Special Judge Geentanjli Goel, however, prima facie found that an offence under Section 355 (assault or criminal force with intent to dishonour person, otherwise than on grave provocation) of the Indian Penal Code was made out against him..The discharge order thus stated,“It is held that the offences under Sections 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence, or giving false information to screen offender) IPC are prima facie not made out against the accused Ravinder Vishwanath Gaikwad and he is discharged for the same. However, the offence under Section 355 IPC is prima facie made out against the accused.”As the charge attracts a maximum punishment of two years, with or without fine, the case was remanded to the Magistrate Court..The case stems from a 2017 incident where the former lawmaker allegedly manhandled and beat up a ground-crew member of Air India for not being given a business-class seat.Apart from the statements of witnesses, the prosecution relied on a video clip of the alleged incident. It was pointed out that the slipper with which Gaikwad had reportedly hit the complainant was not produced by him and that he had hidden it somewhere, thus, Section 201 of IPC (causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender) was invoked..It was argued by the prosecution that causing injury was actually not required to attract Section 308 IPC, but mere intention or knowledge would suffice. The height of the aircraft, it was contended, was about 20 to 25 feet and if the accused had pushed the complainant out of the aircraft, he would have died.On the contrary, the defence counsel submitted that Gaikwad had twice been an Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) and a one-time MP. It was pointed out that there were no pending cases against him.The accused was stated to have booked a business class ticket in March 2017 from Pune to Delhi and he had been calm and polite without creating any ruckus at the Pune Airport or in the flight, it was claimed.The counsel contested the Section 308 charge stating there were no injuries to the complainant. It was argued that except the complainant, no other witness had stated that Gaikwad had tried to lift the complainant but had only stated that he had tried to push him..The Court noted that all the witnesses had talked about Gaikwad hitting the complainant with his slipper, with some of them even stating that he hit the complainant on his head.“But it is neither alleged nor it would be plausible that the beatings administered to the complainant by the accused by the slipper were such as could lead to death and thereby to culpable homicide not amounting to murder,” the order underscored.The Court highlighted the fact that it was only on October 8, 2021 - nearly four-and-a-half years from day of the incident - that Gaikwad was interrogated regarding the slipper which was used in the alleged crime..It came on record in the supplementary chargesheet that because he had not produced the slipper, Section 201 IPC was invoked.The Court observed this act of the police as an "after-thought" perhaps to "save its own skin when" after four-and-a-half years of the slipper not being recovered. "When the IOs had not been diligent in taking necessary steps for the recovery of the slipper at the relevant time, despite the complainant and all the witnesses stating that the accused had hit the complainant with the slipper/ sandal, after 4 ½ years, the accused could not have been expected to have kept it in safe custody to be produced as and when and if at all, demanded by the IO,” the Court observed.Thus, the Court held that non-production of the slipper by the accused after so many years of the alleged incident, when he was never asked for it earlier, could not be construed as causing evidence of the commission of offence to disappear..Additional Public Prosecutor Manoj Garg for the State.Advocates Ankur Gupta and Tarun Gupta represented Gaikwad..[Read Order]