TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1651
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led to the death of one suspect who was brought and detained by the police officers / team involved with investigation of Crime No.70 of 1993 registered ten days prior to the date of incident on 19.09.1993 under Section 380 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'). Applicant before me is the Investigating Officer. He was appointed on probation as Police Sub-Inspector at Taloja Police Station on 19.08.1993 and assigned to undertake investigation as Investigating Officer in Crime No.70 of 1993 registered on 19.09.1993 pertaining to theft of gold ornaments from a residential house. 4. Before I advert to the submissions and merits of the matter as argued by Mr. Mundargi and Ms. Tidke, it is pertinent to refer to the impugned order passed by Sessions Court which is appended at page No.22 of the Application. If the said order is seen then the reason for rejection of discharge Application qua the Applicant before me who had sought discharge is given in paragraph No.6. However on the basis of the same findings returned in paragraph No.6, learned Trial Court has passed order in the same impugned order discharging Accused No.1 - Vinayak Siddheshwar Joshi, however rejecting the dischar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....levant material on record has not been considered at all. 6. Briefly stated, the facts in the present case are that on 19.09.1993 one Mr. Bhau Rama Patil of village Tondare, Taluka - Panvel lodged complaint of theft in his house with Taloja Police Station which was registered as Crime No.70 of 1993 for offence punishable under Section 380 read with Section 34 of IPC against unknown persons. Allegation was that some unknown persons had stolen gold ornaments from his house. Investigation in the crime was undertaken. At that time, Applicant was appointed as Police Sub-Inspector on probation and posted at Taloja Police Station on 19.08.1993. He was assigned as investigating officer in this case of theft. Four constables namely Accused Nos.3 to 6 were assigned to assist Applicant in investigation. It it is prosecution case that on instructions of Applicant deceased - Pandurang Dharma Patil being a suspect was directed to be arrested and brought to the Police Station. However there is no prima facie evidence on record of any such direction having been given by Applicant as Investigating Officer to Accused Nos.3 to 6 and admittedly and there is no record / entry of Pandurang Dharma Pat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itnesses including two eye witnesses to the said incident. It is seen that in the said departmental inquiry, evidence of 11 witnesses was recorded whose names are appended on internal page No.3 of the inquiry report. Three out of them are Accused Nos.3 to 6. The evidence of the eye witnesses namely Bhagwan Rama Patil who was brought alongwith deceased Pandurang Dharma Patil and Irfan Usman Shaikh to the Police Station on the date / night of the incident is critical and important. It is seen that Bhagwan Rama Patil and another constable Prabhakar Parshuram Patil of Panvel Police Station have deposed in detail about the incident as eye-witnesses to the incident being Government witnesses. That apart, witness action has already been recorded of the happening of the incident by Accused Nos.3 to 6 in detail. What is relevant for consideration is the evidence of the eye witnesses to the incident namely the incident leading to death of Pandurang Dharma Patil while in custody. It is seen that both eye witnesses have stated as to what exactly transpired. One of the eye witness namely - Prabhakar Parshuram Patil who was working as Police Havaldar has stated that on 28.09.1993 after his duty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1993 has also deposed that even he was not informed by the staff member i.e. the police constables who brought Pandurang Dharma Patil and Bhagwan Rama Patil to the Police Station on the night of the incident. Police Sub-Inspector - Mr. Arun Mali has deposed that he was posted on night duty in the Police Station on that same date. The said inquiry has concluded by returning a finding that no entry was made of having brought the deceased alongwith the other two accused in the Police station diary which is mandatory nor the fact was informed to the Investigating Officer i.e. the Applicant before. This evidence in the departmental inquiry of several eye witnesses to the incident on the intervening night of 28.09.1993 and 29.09.1993 is material and relevant. It is on record. All that the learned Trial Court has stated in the impugned order is that it has gone through the papers of investigation. If that be the case it ought to have found place in the impugned order, sadly it is not so. No purpose will be served after 22 years after having admitted the present Revision Application to remand it back for reconsideration, only because the order is as cryptic as possible. What is crucial and....