2019 Supreme(SC) 1299

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
V. Rajaram - Appellant
Versus
State Represented By The Inspector of Police CBI/SCB - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1765-1766 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.3433-34 of 2019)
Decided On : 26-11-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) When trial court has recorded a finding which is a plausible view of matter, High Court could not have substituted its views with conclusion of trial court.
(2) In order to attract ingredients of Section 217 IPC, there should have been disobedience of direction of law with intention to save accused.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 217 and 221 – Dereliction of duty by public servant(Police Officer) – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – It is alleged that appellant intentionally omitted to apprehend miscreants despite fact that they committed various cognizable offences in his presence and alleged to have intentionally aided them in escaping from place of occurrence – To prove charges under Section 221 IPC, prosecution must prove that accused is a public servant; that person in question had been charged with an offence; or that such person was liable to be apprehended for an offence; that the accused was legally bound to apprehend such person for the same; that he omitted to apprehend and that he did so Intentionally – Evidence of PWs shows that appellant was taking action and there was no lack of diligence on his part – From evidence, it is brought on record that appellant and other police personnel have used force and chased away agitators – In order to attract ingredients of Section 217 IPC, there should have been disobedience of direction of law with intention to save accused – Prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show that appellant-accused has disobeyed direction of law or direction of superior officer or acted with intention of saving accused. (Paras 21, 22, 26, 29 and 30)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 217 and 221 – Dereliction of duty by public servant(Police Officer) – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – In a tense situation where there is law and order problem, normally a superior gives out instructions on how to handle a situation and subordinates are expected to carry them out – If each subordinate police officer start taking actions on his own without order from superior officer, it would lead to chaos and confusion – There is nothing on record to show that appellant disobeyed orders of officer placed In-charge of bandobust nor there was any lack of diligence and inaction on part of appellant to sustain conviction of appellant under Sections 217 IPC and 221 IPC – One of essential ingredients to make out offence under Section 217 IPC is that public servant should have disobeyed any directions of law with intention to save any person from legal punishment – In present case, there is no evidence to show that appellant has disobeyed directions of any law – On the contrary, there is clear evidence to show that appellant and other police personnel have used mild force against miscreants and chased them away to prevent any further untoward incident – Absolutely, there is no evidence to show that appellant did not obey command of Superintendent of Police who were present on spot for issuing directions and commands – There is no evidence to prove that appellant omitted to do any act to sustain conviction under Section 217 IPC – Similarly, there is no evidence to show that appellant intentionally omitted to apprehend accused on the spot to sustain conviction under Section 221 IPC – When trial court has recorded finding that ingredients of Sections 217 IPC and 221 IPC are not made out which is a plausible view, High Court could not have substituted its views with conclusion of trial court – High Court was not right in reversing order of acquittal passed by trial court and impugned judgment qua appellant is not sustainable and appellant is acquitted – Appellant is not in any way involved in main occurrence – Very charge against appellant for which he was tried is different and distinct from charge for which other accused were tried – Appeals preferred by other accused shall be considered on their own merits. (Paras 31, 32, 33, 34 and 36)

Facts of the case:

Present appeals arise out of judgment and order dated 21.03.2019 and 25.03.2019 passed by High Court of Madras at Madurai Bench in Crl.A. (MD) No.274 of 2011 in and by which High Court set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai in Sessions Case No.3 of 2009 and convicted the appellant-accused No.17 under Sections 217 IPC and 221 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and four years respectively. point falling for consideration is whether the judgment of trial court qua appellant was perverse and whether there were substantial grounds for High Court to reverse order of acquittal of appellant recorded by trial court and convict appellant for offences punishable under Sections 217 IPC and 221 IPC. Appellant was then jurisdictional Deputy Superintendent of Police.

Findings of Court:

Upon appreciation of evidence and considering ingredients of Sections 217 IPC and 221 IPC, trial court acquitted appellant. When trial court has recorded finding that ingredients of Sections 217 IPC and 221 IPC are not made out which is a plausible view, High Court could not have substituted its views with the conclusion of trial court.

Result : Appeals allowed