1995 (5) TMI 289 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court grants benefit of doubt due to unreliable evidence

Pradeep Narayan Madgonkar and Ors. Versus State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants, granting them the benefit of doubt due to unreliable and insufficient evidence. ... - Issues Involved:1. Legitimacy of the search and seizure operation.2. Reliability of the panch witnesses (PW 2 and PW 5).3. Credibility of the police witnesses (PW 1, PW 4, and PW 6).4. Admissibility and reliability of the confessional statements of appellants A1 and A2.5. Overall sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction under TADA and the Arms Act.Detailed Analysis:Legitimacy of the Search and Seizure Operation:The judgment scrutinizes the compliance with Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C., which mandates the presence of independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality during a search. The court questions whether PW 2 and PW 5 meet these criteria, noting that they were not from the locality where the search was conducted. The court finds it suspicious that the police did not make a serious attempt to involve local independent witnesses before conducting the search.Reliability of the Panch Witnesses (PW 2 and PW 5):The court examines the testimonies of PW 2 and PW 5 and finds significant discrepancies. PW 2 admitted to having acted as a panch witness in previous police raids and was found by the Designated Court to be 'available' and 'amenable' to the police. PW 5, who was a friend and associate of PW 2, admitted to providing a fake address to the police and had a history of gambling. The court concludes that both witnesses' explanations for their presence at the scene were inconsistent and unconvincing, rendering their testimonies unreliable.Credibility of the Police Witnesses (PW 1, PW 4, and PW 6):While the court acknowledges that the evidence of police officers cannot be discarded merely because they belong to the police force, it emphasizes the need for strict scrutiny and corroboration. The court finds that the police officers' decision to involve PW 2 and PW 5, despite knowing their backgrounds, casts doubt on the fairness of the investigation. The court also notes that the police officers did not join any independent witnesses from the locality, further questioning the integrity of the operation.Admissibility and Reliability of the Confessional Statements of Appellants A1 and A2:The Designated Court had already disbelieved and ruled out the confessional statements of A1 and A2. The Supreme Court concurs with this assessment, noting discrepancies and procedural issues in the recording of these statements by PW 3, Hemant Karkare, Deputy Commissioner of Police.Overall Sufficiency of the Evidence to Sustain the Conviction:The court emphasizes that the quality of evidence required for a conviction under Section 5 of TADA, which carries stringent punishment, must be of a high order. Given the inconsistencies in the testimonies of PW 2 and PW 5, and the lack of independent corroboration for the police witnesses' statements, the court finds the evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction. The court concludes that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.Conclusion:The Supreme Court sets aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants, granting them the benefit of doubt due to unreliable and insufficient evidence. The appellants are ordered to be released from custody forthwith if not required in any other case.