The High Court of Bombay Criminal Appeals held that convictions based solely on vulnerable testimony and inadmissible custody statements were unsustainable. The appeal allowing bail was converted into a substantive appeal.
Impugned judgment of conviction set aside; appellant released forthwith; fine refunded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 80 OF 2009
Ravi Purshuram Kanthrulu @ Rahim ] Age 35 years, C/o. Mr. Razak Patel, ] Dhobhi Talao, 4th Marine Street, ] Opp. Karma Trust, Mumbai 2, presently ] in judicial custody in Mumbai Central Prison ] (Arthur Road Jail), Mumbai ] ...Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra ] (Azad Maidan Police Station) ] ...Respondent.
Ms. Sushan Kunjuraman and Mr. Mahesh Kadam for the Appellant
Mrs. A.S. Pai, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.
CORAM : B ILAL NAZKI and A.R. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 2009
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Bilal Nazki, J.):-
When an application seeking bail was being argued,
this Court found that there are only two witnesses on the basis of whose testimony, the case was decided by the trial Court.
2
Therefore, we thought it proper to hear the main appeal itself. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the last date, was requested to prepare the case, and the case was heard today.
January, 2007 till after about two months, when a person, P.W.1,
approached the police and made a statement before the police.
On or about the same date, another witness, P.W.2, also
3
approached the police and made a statement. Statements of these two witnesses are the basis for conviction of the accused for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for which he has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,000/-. Besides the testimony of these two people, the prosecution has tried to use the statement made by the accused during police custody in Narco-analysis Test. But we are of the firm view that if the statements of P.Ws. 1 and 2 would not connect the accused to the offence he was charged with, there is no other material on record to prove the guilt of the accused. In all, 8 witnesses have been brought before the Court by the prosecution.
4
saw blood stains on the white cloths of one person sleeping. A white gunny bag was kept at the head of the first person. He could not see the face of the said person, but he could see the face of the second person who was also sleeping near the feet of the first person. The second person was sleeping, using his left hand as his pillow. The witness could see his face on the right side. The nose of the person was straight. He had beard. He had long hair. He had worn cloths of greenish colour. He had also seen two to three impressions of blood palms of feet in the middle of the first and second persons. After seeing this, he got scared. He came towards the bridge, and continued the morning walk. He had a desire to tell what he had seen to the police, but he was scared, and, therefore, he did not approach the police. After one to one-and-a-half months, he went to Azad Maidan Police Station on 24th February, 2007, and narrated the said story to the police. As the story is unfolded, it becomes abundantly clear that this witness is a put up witness and had no knowledge of any event.
His further statement is also important. He stated that
on 25th April, 2007, police called him to Azad Maidan Police
5
Station, and they told him that an Identification Parade of the suspected persons was to be conducted. Therefore, he went to Arthur Road Jail, and then in the presence of the magistrate, he identified the accused. This witness approached the police on 24th February, 2007. The accused was in custody of police from 5th February, 2007, but Identification Parade was conducted only after more than two-and-a-half months, on 24th April, 2007.
another person who has been put up by police to prove the case. He stated that he used to run vada pav centre at New Excelsior
Cinema, Fort, Mumbai. He used to take morning walks at about 5.00 a.m. to 5.15 a.m. On 11th January, 2007, while he was taking
6
morning walk, when he reached the railway overbridge after Metro Cinema, he saw that one person was sleeping and another person was standing near him. He saw that a white gunny bag was on the head of the person who had slept. When he was walking near both persons, the person who was standing was tapping on the person sleeping with hands. The person who was standing had beard. He had long hair. The said person had worn Kurta-Payjama of greenish colour. He has not offered explanation as to why he did not inform the police about the incident till 1st March, 2007. In any case, he had not even seen anything suspicious. Therefore, we do not understand why he had put up a story that he had seen the accused near the body of the deceased. Even after his statement was recorded on 1st March, 2007, he was taken for Identification Parade only on 25th April, 2007 along with P.W.1. Obviously, these two witnesses were got-up by the police to show to the people that they had solved the mystery and they had arrested a person who was responsible for murder of an unknown person. There is no other evidence which could connect
the appellant to the offence for which he was charged. The attack might have taken place later. It is always desired that the
7
investigation would be able to secure further evidence against a suspect. But such investigative details are not to be misunderstood for evidence in a case. Any statement made by an accused in police custody incriminating himself is hit by Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Evidence Act, and as such, cannot be relied upon.
BILAL NAZKI, J.
A.R. JOSHI, J.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether statements recorded from the accused in police custody are admissible under Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Evidence Act.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Ravi Purshuram Kanthrulu @ Rahim
State of Maharashtra
Bilal Nazki
A.R. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
