LexSTATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA versus SANVLO NAIK & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 913 STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, A SPECIAL CRIME BRANCH, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA v. SANVLO NAIK & ANR. (CriminalAppealNos.1610-1611 of2007) SEPTEMBER 07, 2017 [RANJAN GOGOi AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.J B Appeal - State '.s appeal against acquittal - Accused- respondents were serving as Inspector Jn-charge and Police C constable - Case of custodial death - Charge sheet of all accused under s.302 - Trial court acquitted all of offence under s.302, however convicted accused-respondents under s.304 Part 11 rlw s.34 - Acquittal of accused-respondents by High Court accepting their plea of alibi - Appeal by State against acquittal - Held: There were serious inconsistencies in the entries made in the General Diary D Register of the concerned Police Station - There was overwriting in .the entries with regard to the departure of the accused-respondents from the Police Station for home around the time when the death of the victim took place and several pages of the register in continuity were missing which rendered the said register wholly unacceptable E document - Thus, the plea of alibi was not substantiated - It cannot be said that these facts were trivial, as found by the High Court - Having regard to the circumstances and the absence of any cogent explanation on the part of the accused-respondents and taking into account the fact that the deceased was in police custody and death F had occurred in such custody, it was the accused-respondents (accused Nos.2 and 5) who, to the exclusion of any other persons, were responsible for the injuries that caused the death of the deceased - Acquittal of accused-respondents under s.304 Part 11 r/w s.34 !PC is not legally sustainable - As regards the sentence, the maximum punishment that is awardable in case of offence under G s.304 Part 11 JPC is ten years -'The accused respondents are Police Personnel whose duty was to act in accordance with law - They, ·however; had fudged the General Diary Register of the Police Station to put up their defence and had put up a false plea of alibi - In view of the evidence of P.W.5 that the memo sending the deceased H 913 914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 8 S.C.R. A to the hospital was recorded by him after the deceased was already declared to be dead indicate that accused no. 2 had prepared a false memo sending the deceased to the hospital when he was already dead - The accused respondents having been found guilty of commission of the offence under s.304 Part II rlw s.34 /PC, B awarded maximum sentence awardable under the said Section - Penal Code, 1860 - s.304 Part 1/ rlw s.34. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The General Diary register of the concerned Police Station contained the entry with regard to the departure of c the accused Nos.2 and 5 from the Police Station for home at about 1.25 a.m. A plain scrutiny of the register showed that the same was a wholly unacceptable document. Specifically, several pages were missing in continuity in which the Register ought to have been maintained. That apart, several over-writings in the serial numbers of the relevant entries in the said register, particularly, D with reference to the entry relating to the departure of the accused No.2 from the Police Station at 1.25 a.m. Also there was an entry No.7 in the General Diary of the Police Station recorded at 2.00 a.m. which recorded the memo claimed to have been prepared by accused No.2 sending the deceased to the hospital. The E apparent inconsistency between the two entries in the General Diary Register i.e. entry No.6 (interpolated) and entry No. 7 has been sought to be answered by accused No.2 by contending that the said memo sending the deceased to the hospital was prepared by the accused No.2 earlier i.e. before leaving the police station at 1.25 A.M. which fact is stated in his statement recorded under F Section 313 Cr.P.C. Not only Entry No. 6 of the General Diary Register contains an overwriting, Exhibit 68 does not mention the time when it was written. Neither there is any reference to the said memo in the General Diary which would have been but a natural part of the conduct of the accused No.2 who had G specifically mentioned against Entry No.6 that he had left the Police Station at 1.25 a.m. The plea of alibi for the reasons mentioned is wholly unacceptable. It cannot be said that these facts were trivial, as found by the High Court. The oral e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.