LexBALASAHEB @ RAMESH LAXMAN DESHMUKH versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1190 BALASAHEB @ RAMESH LAXMAN DESHMUKH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 1043 of 2002) DECEMBER 07, 2010 [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 20(3) - Protection C under - Police case wherein appellant not an accused but asked to depose as a witness - Filing of complaint case in relation to same incident later on wherein appellant figuring as accused - Appellant seeking protection under Article 20(3) - Held: Not entitled - Protection under Article 20(3) does D not extend to all kinds of evidence but only to self- incriminating statements relating to charges brought against accused - For invoking constitutional right under Article 20(3), formal accusation against the person claiming the protection must exist - Merely because the appellant figures as E accused in the complaint case, a blanket protection cannot be granted. The appellant was asked to depose as a witness in a police case. Thereafter, a complaint case was filed in relation to the same incident. The appellant was named F as an accused in the complaint case. The Magistrate in sesin of the trial was directed to conclude the trial. The appellaht was to be examined as a witness. The appellant challenged the same. The Magistrate held that the prosecution could not examine the appellant as a witness G in the Police case. The responde!lt-State filed a revision application. The High Court allowed the application and set aside the order of the Magistrate holding that no such blanket protection could be given to the appellant under H 1190 BALASAHEB@ RAMESH LAXMAN DESHMUKH v. STATE1191 OF MAHARASHTRA Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950. Therefore, A the appellant filed the instant appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950 does not extend to all kinds B of evidence but only to self-incriminating statements relating to the charges brought against an accused. In order to bring the testimony of an accused within the prohibition of constitutional protection, it must be of such character that by itself it tends to incriminate the accused. C However, in case of trial in the police case answer to a certain question if tends to incriminate the appellant he can seek protection at that stage. Whether answer to a question is incriminating or otherwise has to be considered at the time it is put. [Para 5] [1195-F-H; 1196- D A-B] 1.2 For invoking the constitutional right under Article 20(3) a formal accusation against the person claiming the protection must exist. Simply because the appellant E figures as the accused in the complaint case, a blanket protection as claimed by him cannot be granted. In the Police case, he utmost can be asked to support the case F of the prosecution but no question intended to incriminate him can be asked and in case it is done, the protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution would spring into action. What question should be put to the appellant when he appears as a witness is a matter of guess and on that basis he does not deserve the blanket protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. [Paras 6 and 9] [1196-E; 1198-D-G] G 1.3 The appellant is not an accused in the police case but, in fact, is a witness, whose statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore, at this stage the blanket protection H 1192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (201 O] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A sought by the appellant is not fit to be granted. [Paras 5 and 9] [1195-G-H; 1198-G] State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad AIR 1961 SC 1808; Ramanal Bhogi/al Shah and Anr. vs. D:K. Guha and B Ors. (1973) 1 SCC 696; Raja Narayan/al Bansi/a/ v. Maneck Phiroz Mistry and Anr. AIR 1961 SC 29 - referred to. c D Nandini Satpathy vs. P. L. Dani and Anr. (1978) 2 SCC 424 - distinguished. Case Law Reference: (1973) 1 sec 696 Referred to Para 4, 7 AIR 1961 SC 1808 Referred to Para 5 AIR 1961 SC 29 Referred to Para 6 (1978) 2 sec 424 Distinguished Para 8 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1043 of 2002. E From the Judgment & Order dated 27.4.2001 of the High F Court of Judicature of Bombay, bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Revision Application No. 268 of 2001. M.Y. Deshmukh, Shivaji M. Jadhav for the Appellant. Manisha Pitale, Sanjay V. Kharde, Asha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.