2020 Supreme(Bom) 217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
K.R. SHRIRAM, J.
State Of Maharashtra C.I.D - PUNE - Appellant
Versus
Mohammed Hanif Shaikh Chand Maniyar — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1071 of 2003
Decided on : 02-01-2020
Advocate Appeared:
Pallavi Dabholkar, Advocate, Ranjeet R Gaikwad, Advocate, Prashant S Hagare, Advocate
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code ,1860 - Section 330 - Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 - Section 174 - Evidence of blunt abdominal injury - Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession, or to compel restoration of property - Accused were police officials. Accused no.1 was attached to Pimpri Police Station and accused no.2 was attached to Police Station - Alleged incident is supposed to have taken place between relevant time accused were deputed in the squad One was working for said squad as an informer - On day of incident accused went to the house of deceased - Deceased was not there – Accused went to house house deceased was playing cards - Accused asked deceased to accompany them to trace out house of one habitual criminal by name Vishnu deceased was in company of accused – Held, presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court - presumption of innocence available to the accused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law - Accused having secured acquittal, the presumption of their innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Trial Court For acquitting accused, Trial Court observed that the prosecution had failed to prove its case - Trial Court cannot be held to be illegal or improper or contrary to law - Order of acquittal, in my view, cannot be interfered with – Court cannot find any fault with the judgment of the Trial Court - Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
K.R. Shriram, J.
This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment of acquittal passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pimpri, on 27th May 2003 acquitting two accused of offence punishable under Section 330 (Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession, or to compel restoration of property) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. I am informed that accused no.1 has expired. Therefore, the appeal against accused no.1 abates.
3. Mr. Gaikwad, whose appearance is mentioned above for accused no.2, was of no assistance to the Court as he was only seeking an adjournment on instructions from the Advocate on record and since after going through the papers, I had to come to the conclusion that the appeal has no merits, the Court did not grant the request of Mr. Gaikwad.
4. The accused were police officials. Accused no.1 was attached to Pimpri Police Station and accused no.2 was attached to Bhosari Police Station. The alleged incident is supposed to have taken place between 9.30 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. on 21st August 1999 at Nehrunagar, Pimpri. At the relevant time, the accused were deputed in the squad of D.C.P. Zone-III, Pune. One Prakash Maruti Waghmare (the deceased) was working for the said squad as an informer. On the day of the incident at about 9.30 a.m., the accused went to the house of deceased. The deceased was not there. The accused, thereafter, went to the house of one Trimbak Kakade at whose house deceased was playing cards. The accused asked the deceased to accompany them to trace out the house of one habitual criminal by the name Vishnu Maruti Shinde. Whilst the deceased was in the company of the accused, he was not feeling well and therefore, accused admitted the deceased in the hospital of one Dr. Sunil Lohade (PW-11) at Chinchwad Station, Pune. After giving preliminary treatment, Dr. Lohade advised the accused to take the deceased to Y.C.M. Hospital at Pimpri for further treatment. The accused, however, did not take the deceased to Y.C.M. Hospital but reached him to his house. At about 1.30 p.m. the condition of the deceased became serious and his brother Bibhishan Waghmare, his mother and relatives took the deceased to the Hospital of Dr. Lohade (PW-11) again. Dr. Lohade advised them to take the deceased to Y.C.M. Hospital for further treatment but despite the treatment being given at Y.C.M. Hospital, the deceased expired. On the very same day, the brother of the deceased informed the Police about the death of deceased and Pimpri Police on the strength of statement given by the brother of the deceased registered an accidental death case.
5. On 22nd August 1999 P.I. Birajdar was directed by Additional D.C.P., C.I.D., Crime to investigate the accidental death. Investigation was commenced and P.I. Birajdar collected viscera from the Hospital and sent the same for chemical analysis examination. He also recorded the statement of witnesses, collected postmortem report of the deceased and all relevant papers from Y.C.M. Hospital and from Dr. Lohade. The postmortem report opined that the probable cause of death was reserved but the medical officer, who carried out the postmortem, opined that there was evidence of blunt abdominal injury. According to Dr. R.S. Bangal (PW-12), who carried out the postmortem and issued advance medical notification of death certificate, there was evidence of blunt abdominal injury. On 27th January 2000 PW-12 issued a final cause of death report in which he opined the cause of death as "Acute Myocardial Infraction with internal blunt injuries". After receipt of the final report regarding the probable cause of death of deceased, P.I. Birajdar sought an opinion from the Head of Department of Forensic Medicine, B.J. Medical College and Sasson General Hospital, Pune. Accordingly on 20th June 2001 Dr. M.S. Vable, the Head of Department of Forensic Medicine opined that injuries sustained by the deceased as mentioned in the postmortem notes, column nos.17, 19, 29 (a) and 21, collectively are not sufficie