High Court Of Orissa
L. MOHAPATRA, J.
STATE OF ORISSA - Appellant
Versus
PRAHALLAD RATH - Respondent
Govt. Appeal 26 Of 1989
Decided On : 11/03/2006
Railway Property - Unlawful Possession - Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act - Summary: The court discussed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the lack of independent witnesses, the discrepancies in the evidence regarding the date of sample collection, and the admissibility of confessional statements made before the Railway Protection Force. The court found that the confession of the accused was not reliable due to the circumstances under which it was recorded, and as a result, acquitted all the accused persons.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused were involved in the unlawful possession of high-speed diesel oil from a train. The accused were caught with the oil, and a confession was obtained from one of them. However, the trial court acquitted the accused due to lack of recorded confessional statement, absence of physical possession evidence, and non-sealing of the seized oil.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the confession of the accused was not reliable, and there was no other evidence against the accused persons. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the confession, lack of independent witnesses, discrepancies in the evidence, and admissibility of confessional statements made before the Railway Protection Force.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the confession of the accused was not reliable due to the circumstances under which it was recorded, and as a result, there was no other evidence against the accused persons to support their conviction.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the accused persons was upheld.
( 1 ) THIS Government appeal is directed against an order of acquittal recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, first Class, Khurda in Case No. 2 (c) C. C. 54/85 (T. R. Case No. 163 of 1988)acquitting the respondents from charge under section 3 (a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act.
( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that on 12-6-1985, P. Ws. 1 and 4 were escorting 215 of Up Bhubaneswar-Palasa passenger train from Khurda Road to Palasa. On their way, they received information that the staff on duty of generator coach in the said train were preparing to sell high speed diesel oil from the generator coach at Nirakarpur Station. The further case of the prosecution is that when the train arrived at Nirakarpur railway Station, an outsider entered into the generator coach from the off side of the train and got down with a heavy bag on his shoulder. On suspicion, both the R. P. F. staff chased the outsider and caught him red handed. On interrogation, the said person disclosed his name to be Dhaneswar Behera, one of the accused and also confessed that he got the high speed diesel oil from the generator coach of the said train with the help of the other two accused persons on payment of Rs. 80/- as bribe. On verification, it was found that the gunny bag contained 35 itrs. of high speed diesel oil in a black plastic jar. When the train started moving towards Nirakarpur Station, P. W. 1 left the accused Dhaneswar along with P. W. 4 at nirakarpur Railway Station and proceeded in the train to ascertain the address of the other two accused persons, who were in the generator coach. After ascertaining the names and addresses of the two accused persons, he got down at Balugaon and on the next date gave a report in the police station. On the basis of the report, investigation was started and the high-speed diesel was seized. The accused Dhaneswar was examined and his confessional statement was recorded and on completion of investigation, he submitted the prosecution report against the accused person for commission of offence as stated above. The defence plea is one of the complete denial of the occurrence. The prosecution examined seven witnesses in order to bring home the charge and defence examined one witness. The trial Court on consideration of the evidence available on record, held that non-recording of confessional statement by the Investigating Officer shows that the said accused persons had never confessed. The Court also held that even accepting the case of the prosecution that one of the accused confessed, his confessional statement cannot be used against the other two co-accused persons. On analysis of the evidence, the learned magistrate also found that there was no evidence of physical possession of the high speed diesel oil by the accused persons and the bag containing the said seized high speed diesel oil was not sealed. Apart from above, the trial Court also found that independent witnesses, though available were not examined in the case. On the above findings, the learned Magistrate passed an order of acquittal.
( 3 ) THE learned Standing Counsel challenging the impugned judgment submitted that ordinarily in such type of cases, independent witnesses are not available and, therefore, the Court can rely on evidence of official witnesses. The learned counsel for the State further submitted that the high speed diesel oil was seized from the accused dhaneswar when he was carrying the same and he confessed to have got it from two co-accused persons on payment of Rs. 80/- as bribe. On the face of such evidence available on record, according to the learned counsel for the State, an order of acquittal is not called for. It was also submitted that the officer of Railway Protection Force not being a Police Officer, the confession made before the R. P. F. Officer is required to be taken into consideration as a piece of evidence. The learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondents, on the other hand, submitted
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.