Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 478 of 2005
PETITIONER:
Sadashio Mundaji Bhalerao
RESPONDENT:
State of Maharashtra
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/11/2006
BENCH:
G.P.MATHUR & A.K. MATHUR
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
W I T H :
Criminal Appeal Nos. 479 & 480 of 2005
A.K. MATHUR, J.
These appeals are directed against the order dated
17.1.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at
Nagpur Bench in Criminal Appeal No.242 of 1996 whereby the
Division Bench has reversed the acquittal of all the accused-
appellants and convicted them under Sections 302 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code ( for short, ’IPC’) and sentenced them to
suffer life imprisonment. The Division Bench also directed payment of
fine of Rs.30,000/- each by original accused Nos.1,2 & 3;
Rs.15,000/- by original accused No.6; Rs.10,000/- each by original
accused Nos.10, 11, 13, 15, 16 & 17. In default of payment of fine,
they were also directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five
years. So far as the offence under section 201 read with 34, IPC was
concerned, the original accused Nos.1,2,3,6,10,11,13,15,16 & 17
were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.
Original accused Nos.1 to 3 were directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-
each; accused No.6 to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and accused
Nos.10,11,13,15,16 & 17 were directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-
each. In default of payment of fine, they were to suffer further
rigorous imprisonment for two years. The substantive sentences
under section 302 read with 34, I.P.C. and under section 201 read
with section 34, I.P.C. were directed to run concurrently. Hence, the
present appeals by the accused-appellants.
This is one of the unfortunate case where the deceased
has died in the police custody. We are conscious that such incidents
of suspect dying in the police custody has lately increased. This is an
unfortunate scenario. But nonetheless we have to examine the
matter objectively though keeping in mind the fact that the accused
involved in all these appeals are nobody else that the Police officers
and the investigation was being undertaken by their colleagues only.
Therefore, we have to examine all the aspects objectively keeping in
mind the fact that the accused involved in the present appeals are
nobody else but the colleagues of another investigating agency.
Brief facts giving rise to filing of the present appeals are that
the deceased Dilip along with other suspects were involved in a
dacoity case which took place in the village Takarheda within the
jurisdiction of Police-station, Arvi. One Namdeo Tulshiram Taywade,
filed a complaint to this effect that the alleged dacoity has taken place
in his house in which the inmates of the house were injured and
certain ornaments had been taken away from his house. On the basis
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7
of this report, a case was registered on 24.10.1987 against unknown
persons under sections 395, 397 & 398, IPC vide Crime No.254 of
1987. The investigation of the case was taken over by P.I. Bhadikar-
the accused appellant. During the course of investigation, on
5.11.1987 the police arrested seven persons namely (1) Bastam
Devidas Pawar, (2) Comrade Bhimrao Pawar, (3) Dilip Khusmya
Ghosale, (4) Chaubharat Ramchandra Ghosale, (5) Partya Khusmya
Ghosale, (6) Navbharat Ramachandra Ghosale and (7) Gangacharan
Sukhadeo Pawar. The police arrested these persons and sought for
judicial remand from the Judicial Magistrate for the purpose of
investigation. The police was granted custody remand for seven
days for the purpose of recovery of weapons of offence as well as
stolen property. Till this time there was no complain of any ill-
treatment of the accused. After taking remand from the Magistrate,
the accused persons brought them to the Police-station.
On the night intervening between 5.11.1987 and 6.11.1987
when all the accused above mentioned were in police custody on
remand by the Magistrate, the police was interrogating all the
accused at the Police-station, Arvi. Dilip Khusmya Ghosale
(hereinafter to be referred to as ’Dilip’) who was one of the Suspects
in the aforesaid crime was taken up from the police lock up to
Detection Branch room for interrogation by some of the accused-
appellants and it is alleged that his hands were tied down and he was
administered beating by kicks and fist blows and during this
interrogation, Dilip died in the Detection Branch centre. It is alleged
that though Dilip died on account of beating , but in order to cover up
this fact, the police registered a case under section 224, IPC on
6.11.1987 at 2.15 O’ clock that the accused- Dilip has escaped from
the police custody and thereafter wireless message was sent all over
the State describing the general features of the accused-Dilip. It is
alleged by the prosecution that a dead body was found lying in
Adilabad, Andhra Pradesh and the post-mortem was conducted on
the dead body by the P. S.Adilabad. The dead body was in a
decomposed condition and it was cremated. During the course of
investigation this fact came to the light. It was alleged that this dead
body was that of deceased-Dilip and his finger prints were taken and
it was sought to be matched with the finger prints on one receipt of
purchase of a cow and it was sought to be connected with that of the
deceased so as to establish that this was the dead body of deceased
Dilip who was taken away by the police jeep and the same was
disposed of at Adilabad in A.P. by the accused persons.
It appears that for some time nothing happened but some
public spirited persons got a scent of it that some accused has died
in police custody. Therefore, one Dr.Shyam Sundr Bhutada
approached the concerned Superintendent of Police and informed
him that it was a rumour in the town that one Dilip has died in the
police custody. Thereafter, he lodged a written complaint in the
police-station and this report was taken up by the In-charge of the
Police-station. Accused No.2- Bhadikar registered the offence under
section 302 read with 34, I.P.C. vide crime No.263/87. Accused \026
appellant No.1 took up the investigation. It appears that after some
time the higher-ups in the Department came to know about this fact
and therefore, this case was taken up by the C.I.D., Crime and it was
entrusted to P.W.,28, Deputy Superintendent of Police- Bhagwangir
Goswami on 24.12.1987. Thereafter, the investigation was taken up
by Shri Goswami who recorded the statement of all the co-accused
who were held up in that dacoity case along with deceased Dilip and
after completion of necessary investigation all the 17 accused
persons including one D.S.P., incharge of the Police-station were
charged under sections 302, 201 read with Section 34, IPC. The
case was committed to the court of session. The prosecution
examined a large number of witnesses in order to substantiate the
allegation that accused- Dilip died in the police custody. Learned
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7
Second Additional Sessions Judge after recording necessary
evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to
substantiate the allegation against the accused \026 police personnel
and gave the benefit of doubt to all the accused persons and
acquitted all of them. Aggrieved against the order of acquittal passed
by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge dated 30.4.1996, the
State preferred an appeal before the High Court against all the
accused persons. The Division Bench of the High Court, Bombay ;
Bench at Nagpur reviewed the whole evidence on record and
reversed the order of acquittal of all the accused persons and
convicted them as aforesaid by its order dated 17.1.2005. Hence, the
present appeals by the accused-appellants.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
perused the records. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was
arrested in a dacoity case along with other persons and he was in the
police custody. The case of the prosecution was that he was taken for
interrogation in the interrogation room on the relevant date and he
expired and in order to substantiate the allegation, the prosecution
produced some of the witnesses who were already in the custody
along with accused- Dilip, namely; P.Ws. 2,3,4 & 5. These witnesses
alleged that deceased Dilip was detained along with them and Dilip
was being taken with his hands tied for interrogation and he was
administered beating and he shouted for sometime but after some
time no shouting was heard and thereafter the deceased died. The
police prepared a defence that the accused escaped from the Police-
station and therefore, registered a case being crime No.624/87 under
Section 224, IPC on 6.11.1987. The first part of the evidence has to
be closely examined whether the testimony of these witnesses is to
be accepted and to what extent ? P.W.2 was an accused who was
being prosecuted under Sections 302 & 307, IPC. He was also
arrested along with the deceased Dilip and another accused
detained in the police custody. Other accused were also there with
him i.e. Babarao Neware and Sadashiv Uike involved in some other
crime. He deposed that there is a police lock up which is separate
from the Magistrate lock up. The distance between the two is 30 feet.
He stated that one Paradhi boy was brought out of the Police-station
and the accused persons were beating him with sticks, fist and kicks.
They were assaulting the boy in front of the temple of the Police-
station. He deposed that there are three windows in the room and
that he heard the shricks, therefore he woke up and noticed the
incident through that window and he found that as a result of beating
the paradhi boy i.e. the deceased Dilip became unconscious. He
further stated that some water was brought and sprinkled on the face
of the deceased. Then some of the accused persons told that the
deceased was knowingly pretending to be unconscious and
therefore, they further subjected him to beating. Then the deceased
boy did not regain his consciousness and a police jeep was called
and he was taken with handcuffed. This witness has an outstanding
criminal records i.e. 35-36 criminal cases are pending against him.
He has also stated that he could not say as to how the blows landed
on what part of the body as it was dark and he was at some distance.
He also denied some suggestions made to him that he has not
deposed that accused Kishore was asked to bring water and he has
also deposed that the police jeep returned back in the Police-station
at about 10 A.M. A suggestion was also given to him that since he
has been implicated in number of cases by the Arvi Police therefore,
out of vengeance he is deposing against the police. He went to the
extent of implicating the DSP, In-charge of the Police-station. He also
admitted that he has not deposed before the Police but for the first
time he is deposing in the Court. P.W.3- Babarao Naware, another
witness who was also there in the police lock up along with the
deceased. He deposed that he knew accused Nos.1,2,3, 7,9,11, 13
and 16 and he admitted that he along with deceased Dilip were held
up in a dacoity case. He also deposed that the accused No.2 along
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7
with other members of the Staff of police administered beating to the
deceased and he went to the extent of implicating Deputy
Superintendent of Police. He stated that he saw the whole incident
through the window of the lock up and he noticed the incident from 10
to 15 feet. He also deposed that it was about 2.30 A.M., the police
jeep took the dead body of the deceased Dilip and returned at about
7 to 8 A.M. This witness has also deposed that he has 31 criminal
cases pending against him. He also admitted that one Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Mr.Sharma met him but he did not state
anything to him about this incident. According to him, the incident of
beating continued for about three hours. He did not make a complain
about this incident before the lock up guards nor did he tell them
about this incident of kicks and blows being administered on the
deceased during investigation but for the first time he deposed in the
court, he made a lot of improvement in his testimony, during the trial.
P.W.4, who was also held up in a dacoity case, has admitted that he
was arrested along with other accused persons. He also deposed
that he heard the screaming of Dilip in the night at about 12 to 2 A.M.
Thereafter, it is alleged that the deceased Dilip was not brought back
alive in the Police-station. He also made a lot of improvements in his
testimony like that he involved Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Wardha who is one of the assailants and according to him, accused
Kishore assaulted. P.W.5 was also arrested along with the deceased
Dilip. He only deposed that the police took accused Dilip handcuffed
from the room and he heard the shout of Dilip of beating. After some
time the beating stopped and Dilip was not brought back to the room.
P.W.5 did not state who did the beating. Though he was called to
identify the dead body of Dilip but he deposed that he failed to identify
the dead body of the deceased Dilip. He was the brother of deceased
Dilip. He was shown the photograph of the dead body of the
deceased Dilip at Adilabad Police-station but he failed to identify the
dead body. He also deposed that Dilip had sold his cow to Baraku
Wadi ( carpenter) and a receipt was executed to that effect. He has
deposed that this receipt was given by him to the Police. He has
categorically denied that the body which was shown to him was that
of Dilip. This receipt is alleged to have been received by him from his
mother. This is the total eye witnesses produced by the prosecution
to substantiate the allegation against the accused. After appreciating
the evidence the trial court disbelieved all these witnesses. Apart
from this evidence, circumstantial evidence was also sought to be
pressed into service that the dead body which was seized by the
Adilabad Police-station was that of the deceased- Dilip. For this the
prosecution has led the evidence of some of the witnesses like
P.Ws.7, 20 and 21 to substantiate that the dead body of the
deceased was seized by the Police at Adilabad (A.P.). P.W.5
produced a sale receipt of cow from another person to whom the
deceased Dilip had sold his cow, which bears his thumb impression.
The finger prints which were taken by the Police before disposal of
the dead body by the Police at Adilabad Police-station was sought to
be matched with the thumb impression of the deceased Dilip by
producing handwriting expert, P.W.23 that the thumb impression was
that of the deceased. But unfortunately, P.Ws.7, 20, 21, 9 & 10 all
have been declared hostile. P.Ws.7, 20 & 21 were produced to
substantiate that the dead body of the deceased was taken in a jeep
and P.Ws.9 & 10 were produced to show that the receipt which was
scribed by P.W.10 which bears the thumb impression of the
deceased and the same was sought to be connected with the finger
prints which were taken from the dead body by spoon method but this
circumstantial evidence has also not been accepted by the trial court.
This is the total evidence which had been sought to be pressed by
the prosecution to substantiate the guilt of the accused.
Learned counsel for the accused- appellants has
seriously contested and submitted that all the eye witnesses who
have been produced by the prosecution have criminal records and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7
secondly, they are also inimically disposed against the accused. It
was also pointed out that the incident is said to have taken place in
the dead of the night and it is very difficult for these witnesses to
have seen the incident of beating by the accused persons to the
deceased Dilip. It was pointed out that firstly no evidence had been
led to show what was the height of the window from where these eye
witnesses could see the beating to the deceased. Some witnesses
state that some accused persons took the deceased by handcuffing
with the rope in the D.B. room where they heard the shouting. But
some said beating took place in open place near the temple. It was
pointed out that there was no unanimity among the prosecution
witnesses that who beat the deceased and how; whether all the 17
accused persons who were charged were all involved in beating to
the deceased or some of them were involved in beating. Therefore,
learned counsel has submitted that this kind of omissions in
evidence cannot be accepted for convicting all the 17 accused of the
P.S., Arvi, though the High Court has wrongly accepted their
testimony on the face of it.
Learned senior counsel for the State, Shri Shekhar Naphade
has fairly submitted that there are shortcomings in the testimony of
these witnesses. But he has submitted that the fact remains that the
deceased was in the custody of the police and the police has not
accounted for him except by registering a case under Section 224,
IPC and did not pursue the investigation further. He has also pointed
out that the theory of escape is nothing but a fake make believe story
by the accused and they abandoned that by closing the case on
29.4.1989 because they were aware of the fact that the deceased
has not escaped but he has been the victim of their beating.
Learned counsel for the State has emphasized that the investigation
has also been done by the Police personnel i.e. by the C.I.D. and all
the accused who are the eye witnesses are practically won over
because their dacoity case was also closed on 24.10.1988.
Therefore, their testimony has also to be closely scrutinized keeping
in view the fact that they also stand to gain by siding towards the
accused on the closure of the dacoity case. Learned counsel has
also emphasized if the accused had pursued the theory of escape
the case under section 224, IPC would not have been closed,
Secondly they could have cross-examined the witnesses in that light
but no such cross-examination has been done by the accused.
Therefore, this theory of escape of the deceased Dilip is nothing but
a false theory. It is only with a view to create an evidence and to find
an escape route for the accused persons.
Learned counsel in support of this has invited our attention to a
decision of the Calcutta High Court in A.E.G.Carapiet v.
A.Y.Derderian [ AIR 1961 Cal.359] wherein it had been held that the
parties should put their case in cross-examination of the witnesses. It
was also held that this is the rule of one of the essential justice and
not merely technical one. Learned counsel further invited our
attention to a decision of this Court in State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder
Trivedi & Ors.[ (1995) 4 SCC 262] wherein it has been held that in a
case of custodial death or police torture, generally ocular or other
direct evidence is not available and the police officials alone can
explain the circumstances in which a person in their custody died.
Exaggerated adherence to and insistence upon establishment of
proof beyond every reasonable doubt was improper and the Court
must adopt a realistic rather than a narrow technical approach.
Learned counsel submitted that the deceased was last seen in the
custody of the Police and he is not found alive. Therefore, this
circumstance should alone be sufficient to hold the accused guilty.
Learned counsel has also invited our attention to a decision of this
Court in Sahadevan alias Sagadevan v. State represented by
Inspector of Police, Chennai [ (2003) 1 SCC 534] and submitted that
last seen is a very important circumstance and if a person is last seen
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7
in the company of the accused and was never seen thereafter, it is
obligatory on the accused to explain the circumstances in which the
missing person and the accused parted company. It was also held
that false explanation can be taken as a circumstance against the
accused. Learned counsel also invited our attention to a decision of
this Court in Mani Kumar Thapa v. State of Sikkim [ (2002) 7 SCC
157]. In that case their Lordships held that in case of custodial death,
failure of the accused in explaining the inculpating circumstance
could form an additional link in the chain of circumstances. Learned
counsel also invited our attention to a decision of this Court in
Devender Kumar Singla v. Baldev Krishan Singla [ (2005) 9 SCC 15].
This was a case of cheating. In this case it was held that the
statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not
evidence. It is only a stand of the accused or his part of story. It was
pointed out that in the absence of evidence, statement cannot be
used to make up absence of any suggestion during cross-
examination.
Now, a review of the ocular evidence produced by the
prosecution keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel
for the parties, we are of opinion that the statements of the witnesses
cannot be accepted on their face. It is true that the deceased was not
found alive but his dead body was found within the jurisdiction of
Police-station, Adilabad in Andhra Pradesh. Keeping in view that the
investigation has been done by the police personnel against the
police personnel and also keeping in view the previous antecedents
of the prosecution witnesses and the way they have described the
beating, it is very difficult to rope in all the 17 accused persons for
commission of the crime. In fact, the Police should have properly
scrutinized the evidence and they could have pinpointed the person
who was responsible for beating. But unfortunately, the police has
not taken enough care to produce material evidence and pinpoint the
person who was alleged to have been involved in beating the
deceased. It is true that the deceased was last seen in the custody of
the Police and thereafter he was not found alive. Though the police
has made an attempt to cover up the story by registering a case
under section 224, I.P.C. but that was closed shortly thereafter.
Therefore, in this background to draw inference from these
circumstances, the guilt of the accused is very difficult. We are
conscious that there is rise in incidents of custodial deaths but we
cannot completely de hors the evidence and its admissibility
according to law to convict accused. We cannot act on presumption
merely on a strong suspicion or assumption and presumption. We
can draw only presumption which is permissible under the law and
we cannot rush to the conclusion just because the deceased has died
in the police custody without there being any proper link with the
commission of the crime.
Learned senior counsel for the State, Mr. Shekhar Naphade
very fairly submitted that despite the strong loopholes in the
prosecution case the strongest circumstance which stand against the
appellants is that the deceased was in the custody of the police and
that he was last seen alive in the custody of the Police. Thereafter,
he was not seen alive. Therefore, presumption should be drawn of
the guilt of the accused. Commission of crime with reference to this
type of presumption is perverse. It is true that the accused involved
are police personnel but we cannot stand to condemn the whole
police-station just on the basis of only circumstantial evidence of the
deceased last seen in the custody of the police and thereafter he
was not reported alive. Apart from this direct shaky evidence, it is
very difficult to accept the aevidence to connect the dead body with
that of the deceased Dilip which came to the light after two years i.e.
1989. An attempt was made to connect the body of the deceased
with that of Dilip, the prosecution led evidence of P.W.22 who took
the finger prints of the deceased body. P.W.22 took the finger prints
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7
of the deceased on 10.11.1987 though he admitted that the prints
were not visible and these finger prints were sought to be
corroborated with the receipt which was produced by P.W.5 which
also bears the finger print of the deceased Dilip. For this the
prosecution has also led evidence of P.W.10, the scribe of the receipt
and P.W.11. Both the witnesses turned hostile. Consequently, it is
very doubtful how could the receipt given to the purchaser was with
the seller i.e. Dilip which was scribed by P.W.10 and it was said to be
in possession of P.W.5, the brother of the deceased and the
explanation was that his mother gave it to him. The thumb impression
of Dilip in the said receipt was sought to be connected with the finger
prints of the deceased taken by P.W.22. P.W.22 obtained the same
with spoon method of right hand thumb impression and left hand
thumb impression of the deceased which was in highly decomposed
condition, dermis and epidermis of fingers were not found. Firstly the
thumb impression on the receipt was of Dilip has not been proved as
P.W.10 turned hostile. However, the prosecution tried to connect the
body of the deceased by leading evidence of handwriting expert,
P.W.23. P.W.22 was produced by the prosecution to show that he
has taken the finger prints of the deceased through spoon method
and that finger prints had been produced by the prosecution and
P.W.23, the handwriting expert has been examined. P.W.23 has of
course deposed that he has sent his report and as per his finding the
thumb impression on the receipt and that of the dead body taken by
P.W.22 are of the same person. But the question is whether the
finger prints obtained on the receipt on sale of a cow by the deceased
Dilip bears the thumb impression of Dilip or not. Since P.W.10 has
denied that the thumb impression of Dilip was taken in his presence
and since the receipt produced by the prosecution bearing the thumb
impression of deceased Dilip is not proved, therefore, the
comparison of the finger prints of the deceased with that of the
thumb impression is of no consequence. More so, the brother of the
deceased, Paratya and his wife- Shobha have also declined to
identify the dead body. Therefore, under these circumstances, the
prosecution has failed to establish that the dead body was that of the
deceased, Dilip. As such, this circumstantial evidence is also not of
worth that it can connect the accused persons with the commission of
the crime.
As a result of our above discussion we are of opinion that the
view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court in reversing the
judgment of Second Additional Sessions Judge, does not appear to
be well founded. Normally, the appellate court is very slow in
interfering with the order of acquittal unless there are compelling
circumstances to do so. After going through the judgment of the trial
court, we are of opinion that the view taken by the trial court appears
to be just and proper in the given facts and circumstances of the case
and it was not proper for the Division Bench of the High Court to
reverse the finding. We are satisfied that the reasons given by the
High Court in reversing the order of acquittal of the accused persons
are not cogent and does not appeal to the reason so as to justify the
conviction of the appellants. Hence, we allow the appeals filed by the
appellants and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court
and affirm the judgment of the trial court and acquit all accused-
appellants from the charges. The appellants shall be released
forthwith if they are not required in any other case.