Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(1) This appeal against, acquittal is directed against the order dated 29th August 198l of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi by which she acquitted the respondent Ranjan Raja Ram Bagkar who was charged for having committed the murder of Sidak , Pal Singh Gill on board the ship known as M.V. Doha on the night of 9th June 1978. The deceased was serving as fourth officer on the ship while the respondent was also serving in the same ship as a crew member.

(2) Stating in detail the facts leading to the prosecution of the respondent are as follows:- The respondent was a cadet on a ship named as M.V. Doha which was sailing from Qatar to Muscat on its way to the port of Free mantle, Australia. On the night intervening 9th and 10th Jane, 1978 between 10.30 P.M. and 11.30 P.M. he is alleged to have committed the murder to Sidak Pal Singh Gill son of Col. Prithi Pal Singh with an iron bar, on the deck of the ship and thrown him overboard in the sea. The deceased was then serving as fourth officer on the ship. The ship was registered with Univan Shipping Company, Qatar. The deceased on the night of the incident was on duty on the deck between 8 P.M. and 12P.M and he was supposed to call on telephone the next officer who was to take over from him. This he was supposed to do 15 minutes before the expiry of his duty hours, during which period be was also expected to fill in the log book with regard to the duty he performed. The deceased neither filled the log book nor telephoned the next officer, namely Javedkar. Javedkar awoke and finding that he was not called by the deceased, he went to the deck and not finding the deceased he reported the matter to S.S.Grewal, Captain of the ship. The captain came to the deck and found blood all around and some other evidence indicating that the deceased bad been dragged and thrown overboard.

(10) According to Ayri all this was conveyed to the Captain by him and whatever the accused told him was noted by him in his own hand on 13th June 1978 in the separate register opened for this purpose.

(11) Almost to the same effect is the entry made by M.S. Aslam, fifth Engineer. He recorded it in the same register on 13th Jane 1978. Sailopal made entry in the register that he on 8th Jane 1978 when the cargo was being unloaded the accused informed him that he would throw the deceased over board as be had abused him and his father. We may note that these witnesses could not be found out and their version regarding this incident written in their own hand is recorded in the log book and has been duly notarized and placed on record.

(13) P.W. 21 further states that on 11th June .1978 the accused informed him that the deceased had called him on phone on the night of the incident and that when he went up. there was an argument resulting in fight in which the deceased lost his balance and fell over-board the ship. That on 13th and 14th June 1978 he recorded the statements of the entire crew. Cadet Ayri. M.S. Aslam and the accused were asked to record their statements in their own hand. That on 26th when the ship reached Free mantle port, the Australian police came. He gave them all the information including the log book entries. He produced the log book before notary and photo copies of the log book were prepared in the notary's office. He further states that the accused confessed before the Australian police that be bad killed the deceased. This confession, we may notice, contains similar details as are given in the alleged confession made before Ayri. There is, however, some difference inasmuch as in the beginning of the questioning by the police the accused had denied about his involvement. He further says that the accused demonstrated the events leading to the incident which was photographed. S.S Grewal (P.W. 21) further admits that the captain, according to the British Maritime practice which they follow, has ail the powers for the maintenance of discipline and law and order on the ship and this power includes to shooting of a person as well.

(26) In fact, the evidence in this case suggests that on the morning of 10th June 1978 when the accused was arrested, put in chains and confined to the owner's cabin under guard, the decision to frame him was taken. It is not suggested by S.S Grewal (P.W. 21) that any other person besides Ayri had informed him about any earlier incident between the accused and the deceased. In fact, if M.S. Aslam and Sailopal had known anything they would be the first to inform the captain on 10th June 1978 morning itself rather immediately after the disappearance of the fourth officer and on finding the presence of blood stains on the bridge of the ship. Their statement Came into existence on 12th June 1978. In the log book photocopy Ex. Public Witness 23/ A-35/1 0 5, a record maintained by the captain there is no specific mention of the fact that Ayri along with Sailopal came to him on the morning of 10th June 1978 and communicated this information to him. In fact, even the name of Rakesh Ayri is mentioned in the log book for the first time on 15th June 1978. In this context, it is significant to note that Ayri made statement Ex. P/R on 13th June 1978 which is recorded in his own hand. This makes it amply clear that till the captain made sure that Ayri was going to bind himself by making his statement in writing, be did not risk bringing his name into the picture. That is the only reasonable explanation one can think of for the mention of Ayri in the log book for the first time on 15th June 1978. Mr. Feeney, a forensic expert of the Australian police, was not asked to conduct test for the presence of detergent in the bucket. This risk in all probability was not taken to avoid any exposure.