STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MAHADEO NARAYAN GIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri. T. A. Mirza, learned A. P. P. for the appellant, Shri. S. V. Manohar, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and Shri. V. M. Deshpande, learned counsel for Respondents 2 and 3.

(2.) By this revision, appellant-State of Maharashtra takes exception to the order dated 17th December, 2005 passed by the 4th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No. 74/03 discharging the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) In nutshell, the facts relevant for disposal of the Revision Application are as under: the respondents who are police officers were working at Police Station, Nandgaon, District: Amravati in August, 1996. It is the case of the prosecution that one Vinayak Gangaram Sable was illegally arrested and brought into the Police Station and he was mercilessly beaten by the respondents with the help of kicks, blows, sticks and by butt of rifle. On account of multiple injuries suffered by Vinayak he died. The respondents registered accidental death of the deceased. Pursuant to report lodged by the wife and brother of the deceased with the Superintendent of Police, Amravati the First Information Report for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the respondents vide Crime No. 97/96 on 3-8-1996. The investigation was taken up. The post-mortem of the deceased disclose 17 injuries on the person of deceased Vinayak. The matter was investigated and sanction was sought from the State Government which was accorded on 4-9-2002. Thereafter, charge-sheet was filed on 3-3-2003 and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. In Sessions Trial No. 74/03 before the 4th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge the respondents/ accused filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that deceased Vinayak Sable had died on account of the accident and also on the ground that sanction was not obtained within two years as contemplated under Section 161 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The learned Judge upheld the contentions and held that since the respondents had arrested deceased Vinayak while on duty and under colour of the duty they had assaulted him which led to his death they were entitled to the benefit under Section 161 of the Act. Consequently, respondents/accused were discharged of the offence alleged against them.