Bombay High Court
Sujal Balram Mondal (In Jail) vs State Of Maharashtra, Through P.S.O. ... on 6 December, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 BOM 1377
Author: M.G.Giratkar
Bench: M.G.Giratkar
241-CRIL.REVN..178-14- 1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 178 OF 2014
APPLICANT :- Sujal Balram Mondal
Aged about 32 years, Occ. Labourer
R/o Jayanagar, Tq. Chamorshi,
Dist. Gadchiroli
...VERSUS...
NON-APPLICANT :- State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station Gadchiroli,
Dist. Gadchiroli.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sumedh Kadam h/f Mr. Rajnish Vyas, counsel for the
applicant/accused.
Ms. Trupti Udeshi, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : M.G.GIRATKAR, J.
DATED : 06.12.2018
ORAL JUDGMENT
The case of the prosecution against the applicant in short is that, the applicant/accused was externed from district Gadchiroli. During the period of externment he was found at village Jaynagar, Tahsil Chamorshi. He was arrested in presence ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 07:49:20 ::: 241-CRIL.REVN..178-14- 2/6 of panchas. Chargesheet was filed for the offence punishable under Section 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The charge was framed by Judicial Magistrate First Class,Chamorshi. Prosecution has examined in all four witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After hearing the prosecution and defence, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chamorshi convicted the applicant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days.
2. The judgment of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chamorshi was challenged before the Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2012. Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli vide judgment dated 19th December 2014 partly allowed the appeal and maintained the judgment of conviction, however, modified the sentence and accused was directed to undergo jail sentence for a period of six months instead of one year. Hence the present revision.
::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 07:49:20 ::: 241-CRIL.REVN..178-14- 3/6
3. Heard learned advocate Shri.Sumedh Kadam h/f learned advocate Shri.Rajnish Vyas. He has submitted that the material evidence relied by the prosecution are not proved. As per his submission externment order itself is not proved before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Therefore, offence punishable under Section 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act is not attracted. Learned Counsel has submitted that both the panch witnesses have not supported to the prosecution. There is no independent corroboration to the evidence of PW No.2 and 3, who are the police officers. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused. Hence, applicant/accused is entitled for acquittal.
4. Heard learned APP Ms. Udeshi. She has strongly supported the judgments of Trial Court and First Appellate Court. She has submitted that applicant/accused was externed from Gadchiroli district. During the period of externment he was found in Jaynagar Tahsil Chamorshi. No such suggestions were given to any of the panch witnesses to show that he was arrested from Arun Nagar, Bhandara. Learned APP submitted that prosecution has proved the charge against the applicant/accused. ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 07:49:21 ::: 241-CRIL.REVN..178-14- 4/6 Hence, Revision application is liable to be dismissed.
5. From the perusal of evidence and judgment it is clear that prosecution has not produced a certified copy of externment order. As per the procedure, externment order not proved by the prosecution. It is the case of the prosecution that during the period of externment, accused was found at Jaynagar. Both the panch witnesses not supported to the prosecution. Therefore, there was on any question to give any suggestion to any of the panch witnesses by the side of accused.
6. Both the panch witnesses have specifically stated that applicant/accused was not arrested in their presence. PW-2 and 3 are the police persons, who have stated about the arrest of accused during the period of externment. Specific suggestion was given to PW-3 that applicant/accused was arrested from Arun Nagar, District Bhandara.
7. From the perusal of evidence and judgments, it is clear that prosecution has not proved externment order itself. The arrest of the applicant/accused from Jaynagar is doubtful because ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 07:49:21 ::: 241-CRIL.REVN..178-14- 5/6 both the panch witnesses not stated anything about the arrest, on the other hand, they have stated that applicant/accused was not arrested in their presence. No such panchnama was prepared in their presence. There must be corroboration to the evidence of police persons. Without any corroboration their testimony cannot be reliable.
8. The prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the externment order itself is not proved by the prosecution. Both the material panch witnesses have specifically stated that the accused was not arrested in their presence. They have also stated that arrest panchnama of the accused was not prepared in their presence. In such situation, benefit of doubt must go to the applicant/accused. Hence, the following order:-
(i) The Criminal Revision Application is allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgments are hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) The accused/applicant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 142 of the Maharashtra Police Act. ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 07:49:21 ::: 241-CRIL.REVN..178-14- 6/6
(iv) If amount of fine is already paid by the applicant/accused, it be refunded to the applicant/accused.
(v) Record and Proceedings be sent back to the Trial Court.
JUDGE ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 07:49:21 :::