Case Note & Summary
The Union of India, through the Railway Protection Force, Akola, filed an appeal against the judgment and order dated 17-08-2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Railways), Bhusawal, in Regular Criminal Case No.44 of 1995, whereby the respondent/accused was acquitted under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 (RPUP Act). The prosecution case was that on 05-02-1995, Head Constable Dattatrya Agarkar (PW1) was on patrolling duty at Shegaon Railway Yard. At about 11:30 hours, he saw the accused carrying a heavy iron brake block on his shoulder near 'B' Cabin. The accused could not produce any receipt for the material, and PW1 produced him before ASI L.K. Dhurve (PW2). PW1 lodged a report (Exhibit 7), and PW2 seized the property under panchanama (Exhibit 11), recorded the confessional statement of the accused (Exhibit 12), and obtained an expert certificate (Exhibit 14) confirming the material was railway property. The trial court acquitted the accused, leading to this appeal. The High Court heard Mr. C.J. Dhumane for the appellant and Mr. H.R. Gadhia for the respondent. The court examined the evidence and found that the confessional statement recorded by ASI Dhurve, a police officer, was inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The expert certificate was not proved as the expert was not examined. The panch witness to the seizure was not examined, and the seizure itself was not properly proved. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Acquittal Appeal - Scope of Interference - High Court's power to interfere with acquittal is limited unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence - The appellate court should not lightly reverse an acquittal (Paras 4-5). B) Evidence Law - Confessional Statement - Admissibility - Confession made to a police officer is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The confessional statement recorded by ASI Dhurve (PW2), who is a police officer, cannot be used against the accused (Para 6). C) Railway Property - Unlawful Possession - Burden of Proof - Under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, the prosecution must prove that the property is railway property and that the accused was in unlawful possession - The certificate from an expert (Exhibit 14) was not proved by examining the expert, hence not admissible (Para 7). D) Evidence Law - Panch Witness - Necessity - The panch witness to the seizure panchanama was not examined, and the seizure was not proved through independent evidence - The prosecution failed to prove the seizure of the brake block from the accused (Para 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused under Section 3(a) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent/accused.
Law Points
- Confessional statement recorded by a police officer is inadmissible
- Burden of proof under Section 3(a) of RPUP Act lies on prosecution
- Expert certificate must be proved by examining expert
- Panch witness must be examined to prove seizure
