SADASHIO MUNDAJI BHALERAO versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 733 · Decided: 28-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.P. MATHUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SADASHIO MUNDAJI BHALERAO 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
NOVEMBER 28, 2006 
[G.P. MATHUR AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
B 
.I) Penal Code, 1860: 
ss. 302 rlw ss. 34 and 201134-Custodial death-A person involved in 
a dacoity case stated to have been beaten to death by police-Prosecution C 
of I 7 police officials of the police station-Deceased last seen in their 
custody-Acquittal by trial court-Conviction by High Court-Held, 
statements of witnesses cannot be accepted on their face-Keeping in view 
antecedents of witnesses and the manner in which they described the beating, 
inference of commission of crime by police officials cannot be drawn-Dead D 
body found could not be established as that of victim-The view taken by 
trial court appears to be just and proper and on facts it was not proper for 
High Court to have reversed the finding-Order of acquittal passed by trwl 
court restored-Evidence-Circumstantial evidence-Appeal against 
acquittal-Interference by appellate court-Scope of 
E 
Seventeen police officials were prosecuted for offences punishable under 
Sections 302/34 and 201/34 JPC. The prosecution case was that during the 
investigation of a dacoity case, seven persons were arrested and brought to 
the police station. One of them was taken, with his hands tied, to the Detention 
Branch room for interrogation by some of the accused police officials, where 
he was allegedly administered beating as a result of which he died. Jn order F 
to cover up this, the police registered a case under Section 224 IPC alleging 
that the said decoity-accused escaped from the police custody. Thereafter a 
dead body was found in a decomposed condition which was cremated. The finger 
prints of the said dead body }'i'ete matched with that of the dacoity-accused and 
it was found that the finger prints matched. The trial court held that the G 
prosecution failed to substantiate the allegation against the accused police 
personnel, and giving benefit of doubt, acquitted all of them. But the High 
Court reversed the order of acquittal and convicted all of them of the offences 
charged. Aggrieved, the accused-police officials filed the present appeal. 
733 
H 
734 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A 
It was contended for the appellants that all the eye-witnesses who were 
produced by the prosecution had criminal records and were inimically disposed 
against the appellants; and that there were discrepancies and several 
omissions in the depositions of the witnesses regarding as to where the 
beating took place and who were the police officials involved in the beating. 
On the other hand, it was contended for the State that, assuming some 
B shortcomings in the testimony of the witnesses, the fact remained that the 
deceased was in police custody, the police did not account for him except by 
registering a case under Section 224 IPC and did not pursue the investigation 
further, and the theory of escape was nothing but a false story. 
' 
C 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The statements of the witnesses cannot be accepted on their 
face. It is true that the deceased was not found alive. Keeping in view the fact 
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 
D 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 pinpointed the person 
who was responsible for beating. But unfortunately, they have not taken 
enough care to produce material evidence' in this regard. [743-D, E) 
E 
1.2. The Court is conscious that there is rise in incidents of custodial 
deaths but cannot completely de hors the evidence and its admissibility 
according to law to convict the accused. The Court cannot act merely on a 
strong suspicion or assumption and presumption. It can draw only presumption 
which is permissible under the law and cannot rush to the conclusion just 
F because the deceased has died in the police custody without there being any 
proper link with the commission of the crime. As regards the presumption of 
the guilt of the accused, the strongest circum~tance which stands against 
the appellants is that the deceased was last seen in the custody of the police, 
but inference of commission of crime with reference to this type of 
presumption, is perverse. It

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.