Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of two accused persons, Mohammed Ibrahim Lal Mohammed and Mohd. Arshad Mohd. Ibrahim, who were charged under Section 3(a) of the Railways Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966. The case arose from an incident where the accused were arrested in an unrelated crime (Crime No.34 of 1993) on 14th September 1993. During interrogation, the accused allegedly disclosed that they had railway property stored in their godown at Kurla, Mumbai, valued at about Rs.30,000/-. Accused no.1 purportedly admitted to regularly buying stolen railway property and cutting it into pieces to avoid identification. Based on these confessional statements, the Investigating Officer seized the property from the godown and registered the offence under the said Act. The accused denied the charge and claimed that the seized property was handed over to them by a Court in Kalyan, though no court order was produced. The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove that the seized goods were actually railway property. The State appealed. The High Court examined the evidence, noting that PW-1 (complainant) admitted in cross-examination that accused no.1 told him the property was obtained from Kalyan Court, though he denied seeing any certified copy. PW-2 admitted that railway administration auctions railway property and anyone can purchase it. PW-3 stated that the seized goods had no distinguishing marks to identify them as railway property. The court held that the prosecution did not discharge its burden of proof. The confessional statements made to the police were inadmissible. The trial court's view was plausible and not perverse. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Railways Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 - Section 3(a) - Burden of Proof - Prosecution must prove that seized goods are railway property - In the absence of any marking or identification, mere possession is not sufficient - Held that the trial court correctly acquitted the accused as the prosecution failed to establish that the goods were railway property (Paras 4-6). B) Evidence Law - Confessional Statements - Admissibility - Confessions made to a police officer are inadmissible in evidence - The alleged disclosure by accused to the Investigating Officer cannot be used as substantive evidence - Held that the trial court rightly disregarded such statements (Paras 2-3). C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal Against Acquittal - Scope - High Court will not interfere with acquittal unless it is perverse or based on no evidence - The trial court's finding that prosecution failed to prove the goods were railway property is a plausible view - Held that the appeal is dismissed (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the seized goods were railway property under Section 3(a) of the Railways Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The acquittal of the respondents/accused is confirmed.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on prosecution to establish that seized goods are railway property
- Confessional statements made to police are inadmissible
- Acquittal justified when prosecution fails to prove essential ingredient
