V. RAJARAM versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CBI/SCB

Citation: [2019] 14 S.C.R. 977 · Decided: 26-11-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
977
     V. RAJARAM
v.
STATE REPRESENTED BY THE
INSPECTOR OF POLICE CBI/SCB
(Criminal Appeal Nos.1765-1766 of 2019)
  NOVEMBER 26, 2019
     [R. BANUMATHI AND A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss.217 and 221 – Prosecution case was
that a group of persons (Accused no.1 to 16) armed with dandas
(sticks) and iron rods trespassed into the newspaper office and
vandalized it and set it on fire – Three employees of the newspaper
office got stuck in the engulfing fire and lost their life –  A1 to A16
were charged under IPC, Explosive Substances Act and Tamil Nadu
Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act – Appellant-accused
No.17 who was the then jurisdictional Deputy Superintendent of
Police was charged for offence under ss.217 and 221 – Case against
the appellant was that he did not take action to prevent the crime
and intentionally disobeyed the directions of law and allowed the
accused to escape from the place of occurrence – Trial court
acquitted the appellant on the ground that on the date of occurrence,
appellant was not the superior officer present at the place of
occurrence and that PW-30-Additional Superintendent of Police was
the superior officer and the bandobust was arranged under the
head of PW-30 – State’s appeal against acquittal – High Court
reversed the acquittal of 9 out of 16 main accused – High Court
also reversed the acquittal of appellant and convicted him under
charged offences – On appeal, held: The evidence on record clearly
showed that the bandobust at the Newspaper office was posted under
the control of PW-30 and the appellant was acting under the direction
of PW-30 – Evidence on record further made it clear that the
appellant and other police personnel used force to chase away the
agitators – Evidence of PW-2-News Editor and PW-3-Chief
Operating Officer of Newspaper office was to the effect that
appellant immediately responded to them that action would be taken
at once and that he had not received any order from his superiors
which showed that there was no lack of diligence on his part – In
 [2019] 14 S.C.R. 977
     977
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
978
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
his evidence, PW-30 did not state anything about the appellant
having disobeyed his orders – s.217 is attracted when there is
disobedience of the direction of law with intention to save the
accused – In a tense situation where there is law and order problem,
normally a superior gives out instructions on how to handle a
situation and the subordinates are expected to carry them out –
Responsibility for the actions lies with the superior –  In the instant
case, there was nothing to show that the appellant disobeyed the
orders of PW-30 who was the officer placed In-charge of the
bandobust nor there was any lack of diligence and inaction on the
part of the appellant to sustain his conviction – On the contrary,
there is clear evidence to show that the appellant and other police
personnel used mild force against the miscreants and thus, chased
them away to prevent any further untoward incident – As regards
conviction under s.221, one of the essential ingredients is the
intentional omission to apprehend a person or intentionally aiding
such person to escape – PW-29-Superintendent of Police and PW-
30 who were present on the spot issued directions and accordingly,
the appellant acted – After the occurrence was over, PW-29 directed
the appellant to search for the accused – Accordingly, the appellant
went in search of the accused and arrested accused No.1 to 4 on
various dates – There is no evidence that  appellant intentionally
omitted to apprehend the accused on the spot – The view of  trial
court that ingredients of ss.217 and 221 were not made out was
plausible one – High Court ought not to have substituted its views
with the conclusion of the trial court – Conviction of the appellant
not sustainable.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.  Ex.-P82 is the bandobust duty list as ordered by
PW-29-Superintendent of Police. As per Ex.-P82, police officials
were present at the place of occurrence for bandobust and PW-
30-Additional Superintendent of Police, a superior officer of the
appellant, is mentioned at serial No.1. PW-1-Sub-Inspector of
Police stated that on the date of occurrence, bandobust was under
the leadership of PW-30 who came to the place of occurrence
with striking force and they chased the agitators along with the
appellant. SI-PW-1 stated that about ten persons of Madurai
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
979

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