Janardhan Ramji Sonwane v. State of Maharashtra

Judgment

4th May 2012. Date of pronouncing the judgment : 10th May 2012. JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants question the conviction recorded by the

learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, in Sessions Case No. 63 of 1997, dated 29th February 2000, holding them guilty for an offence punishable under Sections 304 Part-II, 192, 201, read with Section 34, and Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. The major sentence is six years and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for an offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code.

2. The appellants, Sanjay s/o. Yadavrao Sonwane (Criminal Appeal No. 123/2000) and Ramesh s/o. Mohoniraj Pawar (Criminal Appeal No. 124/2000) were the Police Constables attached to Loni Police Station (Taluka : Shrirampur, District : Ahmednagar), where custodial death of Yusuf Alkut Pawar, a suspect, has taken place while in custody. (4) Cri. Appeal Nos. 112, 123 & 124 of 2000 The appellant (original accused no.4), Janardhan (Criminal Appeal No. 112/2000) was a Home Guard at the relevant time, he was also serving as Ward Boy in Pravara Hospital, Loni (Taluka : Shrirampur, District : Ahmednagar).

3. The appeals are admitted on 21-3-2000 and 4-4-2000, respectively. All the accused / appellants are on bail.

4. Yusuf Alkut Pawar with two others [Jagdish Kale (PW 3) and Jagjerao Kale (PW 7)] was in Police Custody Remand of Loni Police Station in Crime No. I-1/1996 for an offence under Section 395, read with Section 397 of Indian Penal Code. He was brought on transfer from Shrirampur Police Station on 30-11-1996 at 8.30 p.m. with PW 3 and PW 7 (his brothers-in-law) It is alleged that when Yusuf Pawar was in Police lock-up of Loni Police Station, the accused appellants, with deceased accused Ashok s/o. Ganpat Barde, in furtherance of their common intention, knowingly caused bodily injuries, and consequently, Yusuf Pawar succumbed and died in Police lock-up on 1st December 1996.

5. Considering gravity of the matter, the investigation was carried by CID Police of Ahmednagar [Anil Kalidas Patil (PW 23)]. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and charge below Exhibit 3 was explained to the accused / appellants for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, 324 read with Section 34, 323 read with Section 34, 192, Section 120-B read with Section 192 of Indian Penal Code, and for an offence punishable under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code. The charge under Section 120-B read with Section (5) Cri. Appeal Nos. 112, 123 & 124 of 2000 192 or Section 201 of IPC was also framed as, in the sealed 2 sample bottles of viscera meant for chemical analysis, Pesticide 'Roger' was mixed to ensure that the Judicial Officer would form erroneous opinion of case of poisoning,

6. Learned Additional Sessions Judge was at pains to record deflection in performing official duty by the Investigating Officer, Anil Patil (PW 23), as he wherever it was possible for him, sidetracked the investigation, coordinated in keeping loops, caused deliberate delays in conducting identification parade or taking charge of a belt (Article 7) purported to be used by the appellant Janardhan Sonawane while assaulting the deceased. PW 23 did not record report in time nor ensure prompt medical reports and Chemical Analyser's reports.

7. 23 witnesses have tried to unfold the prosecution case. as under : PW 1 Dr. Sunil s/o. Damodharrao Jadhav Initially treated the deceased and other accused who were brought by Police. His conduct is noticed to be full of remissness and casual. He was leaning to shield Police staff. PW 2 Dr. Rajesh s/o. Vijaykumar Kachare Conducted post mortem on deceased. He was Lecturer in the Department of Forensic Medicine, Pravara Hospital, Loni. (6) Cri. Appeal Nos. 112, 123 & 124 of 2000 PW 3 Jagdish s/o. Kachru Kale Brother-in-law of the deceased, he was in custody. He is also Panch to the spot panchanama. PW 4 PW 5 PW 6 Omkar s/o. Murlidhar Vikhe Kisan s/o. Shankar Bhalerao Panch to recovery of belt - Turned hostile. Another Panch to recovery of belt - Turned hostile. Navnath s/o. Gaynu Sonawane Panch witness to the scene of offence i.e. Lock-up at Loni Police Station - Turned hostile. PW 7 Jagjerao s/o. Kachru Kale He is brother-in-law of deceased. He was accused along with deceased in Police lock- up and acted as a Panch for spot panchanama. PW 8 PW 9 Bhaskar s/o. Buwaji Tupe Panch to seizure panchanama of notebooks and one register from Loni Police Station. Ashok s/o. Nana Chopade Panch to inquest panchanama of Police lock- up and Panch to seizure panchanama of clothes on the person of deceased. PW 10 Malhari s/o. Keru Kamble Was a Police Constable on duty in whose presence deceased was taken for medical examination. PW 11 Konduri s/o. Venkatam Ramanmurthy Law Officer, in order to prove that accused no.4 Janardhan was serving in Pravara Hospital as a Ward Boy. (7) Cri. Appeal Nos. 112, 123 & 124 of 2000 PW 12 Yosef s/o. Krishna Shelke Police Constable, in Loni Police Station who was to organize duties assignment to the Police staff. He proved duties of accused at Police lock-up room. PW 13 Bhimashankar s/o. Baburao Sangle Police Station Officer in Loni Police Station at the material time. He confirms, accused nos.2 and 3 were on duty during incident. PW 14 Dr. Shrikant s/o. Subhash Asawa He conducted post mortem along with Dr. Rajesh Kachare (PW 2). He says, sealed bottles of samples were handed over to Police Constable B.R. Pawar. PW 15 Dattatraya s/o. Shankar Phaltane Who had been to Loni Police Station for submitting his representation, at that time, he saw deceased lying, shouting. PW 16 Prakash s/o. Bhimrao Wagmode PW 17 Avinash s/o. Kondiba Dhakane PW 18 Laxman s/o. Kanoji Gange Tahsildar, Shrirampur, who drew inquest (panchanama) of the dead body of deceased. Deputy Collector, Malegaon, who conducted identification parade in respect of 14 suspected persons. Tahsildar, Ahmednagar, who conducted identification parade in respect of accused persons in the office of Tahsildar, Ahmednagar, on 11-3-1997. PW 19 Raosaheb s/o. Peter Bansode Panch witness regarding the identification parade - Turned hostile. PW 20 Anandrao s/o. Pandurang Chandane Another Panch in respect of identification parade conducted on 11-3-1997 - Turned hostile. (8) Cri. Appeal Nos. 112, 123 & 124 of 2000 PW 21 Suresh s/o. Shripatrao Bhamre PW 22 Ananda s/o. Laxman Dongare A.P.I. at Loni Police Station who had taken custody of deceased and other accused on the basis of Transfer Warrent from J.M.F.C., Shevgaon and produced them before J.M.F.C., Shrirampur, in Crime No. I-1/1996. Police Head Constable, who was acting as Police Station Officer at the relevant time. PW 23 Anil s/o. Kalidas Patil C.P.I., CID Crime Branch, Ahmednagar / Investigating Officer.

8. The defence of the accused / appellants, Sanjay and Ramesh is, they were on duty at Police Station, Loni, at the material time on 30-11-1996 with other Police staff. Yosef Shalke, Police Constable (PW 12) was also with them. The death of deceased Yusuf Pawar is occasioned due to his flop and fainting. He was feeling unrest and making rowdy movements of his arms and legs. He was taken to Primary Health Centre. However, while taking, he could not control and fell. While he was being brought back to Police Station, he again suffered at the staircase and hence, sustained injuries by fall and later died, while he was in lock-up.

9. The accused, Sanjay and Ramesh, did not dispute their duty hours at the said Police Station and as a guard to the lock-up and a guard register (Exhibit 68) is maintained at the lock-up with a restricted entries in the lock-up requiring entry and exit to be incorporated. (9) Cri. Appeal Nos. 112, 123 & 124 of 2000

10. The accused no.4 / appellant, Janardhan, says, he was on duty at Police Station but not at the guard room, he was assisting as a Home Guard to P.S.O. from 8.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. He was also on duty on 1st December 1996 from 8.00 p.m. till 8.00 a.m. on the next day. He disputes having handled and tampered with the viscera bottles by removing the same from post mortem room of Pravara Hospital to facilitate cause of the Police Constables to make a show of death of Yusuf Pawar by poisoning.

11. Mr. R.N. Dhorde, learned Counsel for the accused / appellants (Police Constables), submits that there is no specific identification by the two eye witnesses Jagdish (PW 3) ad Jagjerao (PW 7) to these accused / appellants. The test identification parade has no legal value as the identification in the court plays vital role. The test identification parade does not constitute substantive evidence and it can only be used as corroborative evidence to the statements in the court (as indicated in the case of Rajesh Umanath Shetty Vs. State of Maharashtra [2009 ALL MR (Cri.) 3684], and in the case of Vijay @ Chinee Vs. State of M.P. [2010 AIR SCW 5510]).

12. Let us scan the legal position, in case of custodial death. The Hon. Supreme Court while dealing with appreciation of evidence in the matter of custodial death in Police lock-up, in the matter of State of M.P. Vs. Shyamsundar Trivedi & others [1995 (4) SCC 262], has observed in para 16 of the judgment, thus : " ....................The High Court erroneously overlooked the ground reality that rarely in cases of police torture or custodial death, direct ocular (10) Cri. Appeal Nos. 112, 123 & 124 of 2000 evidence of the complicity of the police personnel would be available, when it observed that 'direct' evidence about the complicity of these respondents was not available. Generally speaking, it would be police officials alone who can only explain the circumstances in which a person in their custody had died. Bound as they are by the ties of brotherhood, it is not unknown that the police personnel prefer to remain silent and more often than not even pervert the truth to save their colleagues, and the present case is an apt illustration, as to how one after the other police witnesses feigned ignorance about the whole matter. " The Hon. Supreme Court, has also observed in para 17 of the judgment, thus : "................. The exaggerated adherence to and insistence upon the establishment of proof beyond every reasonable doubt, by the prosecution, ignoring the ground realities, the fact-situations and the peculiar circumstances of a given case, as in the present case, often results in miscarriage of justice and makes the justice delivery system a suspect. " The Hon. Supreme Court has further observed thus : " The courts must not lose sight of the fact that death in police custody is perhaps one of the worst kind of crimes in a civilised society, governed by the rule of law and poses a serious threat to an orderly civilised society. Torture in custody flouts the basic rights of the citizens recognised by the Indian Constitution and is an affront to human dignity. Police excesses and the maltreatment of detainees / undertrial prisoners or (11) Cri. Appeal Nos. 112, 123 & 124 of 2000 suspects tarnishes the image of any civilised nation and encourages the men in 'Khaki' to consider themselves to be above the law and sometimes even to become law unto themselves. Unless stern measures are taken to check the malady, the foundations of the criminal justice delivery system would be shaken and the civilization itself would risk the consequence of heading towards perishing. The courts must, therefore, deal with such cases in a realistic manner and with the sensitivity which they deserve, otherwise the common man may lose faith in the judiciary itself, which will be a sad day."

13. In the present case, the prosecution was to prove that deceased Yusuf Pawar was in the custody of accused and that accused were responsible for his death i.e. they caused bodily injuries to him and consequently, he succumbed to the injuries while in the lock-up on 1st December 1996 at 9.00 p.m.

14. One of the limb of submission before this court was, the deceased was assaulted while he was in custody at Shevgaon Police Station, by P.S.I. Ithape, by inflicting electric shocks and consequently, the responsibility of ill-health or deteriorating condition of deceased would not rest to the shoulders of the accused / appellants. However, this defence is raised for the first time without any iota of evidence. To substantiate the same, in the Police remand or during medical examination or when PW 3, PW 7 and deceased were produced before the learned Magistrate, there was no grievance of illtreatment at Shevgaon Police Station. Consequently, this fact loses its significance. (12) Cri. Appeal Nos. 112, 123 & 124 of 2000

15. The tenor of cross examination and evidence of Dr. Sunil Jadhav (PW 1), Dr. Rajesh Kachare (PW 2) and Dr. Shrikant Asawa (PW 14) illustrate that while in Police lock-up, Dr. Sunil Jadhav had examined deceased at 5.00 p.m. At Primary Health Centre, deceased was lying at the bench (not taken on Examination table), he was shouting, he was restless. During his examination at 5.00 p.m. PW 1 found his pulse was 96 per minute, blood was oozing through gums, his blood pressure was 110/70, other conditions were normal. Dr. Sunil Jadhav (PW 1) treated to the deceased, he was unable to find out the exact cause of his restlessness, as his general condition was good. He went to Police Station at 9.00 p.m. on message and examined the deceased in the Police lock-up. As deceased was not making any movement, consequently he visited the Police lock-up of Loni Police Station and found his pulse was feeble, his general condition was not good, he was not making any purposeful movement. He directed the Police to arrange for an ambulance by handing over one memo to the Police stating that since condition of deceased was not good, further treatment was required. The original copy of memo is at Exhibit 14. After 15 minutes of initial examination, he received message and rushed again to Police Station between 9.15 p.m. to 9.20 p.m. and on examination he found that there was no respiratory movement, skin of deceased Yusuf Pawar was cold, he was dead in the Police lock up. The certificate of medical check up was issued by him.

16. Dr. Rajesh Kachare (PW 2) and Dr. Shrikant Asawa (PW 14) at the requisition of the Police and owing to the inquest, carried post mortem on the dead body. (13) Cri. Appeal Nos. 112, 123 & 124 of 2000

17. The defence canvassed is that death of Yusuf Pawar, the under trial prisoner, was accidental or could be natural, while the prosecution claim the same to be homicidal. The multiple injuries found on the person of Yusuf Pawar by Dr. Rajesh Kachare (PW 2), who performed post mortem, indicated that the injuries were not self-inflicted or that deceased Yusuf Pawar had become rowdy, is not possible in view of nature of injuries on his body. Deceased was not suffering from any disease nor from any venereal disease as suspected in the inquest drawn on 1-12-1996.

18. It was based on suspicion in the inquest, Dr. Rajesh Kachare (PW 2) thought it fit to reserve his opinion after the post mortem in view of the said fact and having received the report of Chemical Analyser, he finally gave his opinion. In the cross examination at one stage, Dr. Kachare has admitted that the injuries are possible on account of fall. But his clarification demonstrate that the injuries are not possible at one and the same time on account of fall. The injuries suffered by deceased are as under: 1) Abrasion left frontal region 2 X 2 cm. 2) Abrasion above left eyebrow lateral side ½ X ½ cm. 3) Abrasion above left eyebrow lateral side 1½ X ½ cm. 4) Abrasion at lateral angle of left eye 4 X 2 cm. 5) Abrasion linear, oblique, left upper neck 3 cm. below the angle of mandible 3 X ½ cm. (14) Cri. Appeal Nos. 112, 123 & 124 of 2000 6) Abrasion linear oblique left upper neck 5 cm. 7) Abrasion verticle left upper neck 2 X ½ cm. 8) Abrasion left upper neck 2 X ½ cm. 9) Cresentrice abrasion above injury No.6. 10) Multiple small abrasions on left upper neck. 11) Multiple small abrasions on the back of neck, left side. 12) Abrasion lateral aspect of lateral angle of right eyebrow 2 X 1 cm. 13) Multiple small contusions on right zygomatic area. 14) Left central incisor tooth was loose from upper jaw. 15) Contusion right hypo-chondraic region 6 X 5 cm. margins diffuse. 16) Abrasion right shoulder 4 X 2 cm. 17) Multiple small abrasions on right elbow medial and lateral side. 18) Abrasion left shoulder 7 X 2 cm. 19) Multiple small abrasions on left elbow medial and lateral side. 20) Contusion irregular below the inferial angle of left scapula 9 X 4 cm. (15) Cri. Appeal Nos. 112, 123 & 124 of 2000 21) Contusion left side of back lumber region 17 X 7 cm. irregular. 22) Contusion right side of back verticle 4 X 2 cm. 23) Contusion right side of back linear oblique 15 X 1 cm. 24) Contusion right side of backlinear oblique 10 X 1 cm. 25) Multiple small abrasions all over the back. 26) Abrasion right lower leg lateral and medial Malliolus on anterior and lateral aspects multiple and small. 27) Multiple small abrasions on right knee anterior surface. 28) Multiple small abrasions left knee, lateral surface. 29) Multiple small abrasions left lower leg anterior and medial surface. 30) Abrasion left medial mallcolus external surface. He also found internal injuries i.e. to the internal part of head, as under : 1) Haematoma over vertex 4 X 3 cm. 2) The valut of skull was intact. (16) Cri. Appeal Nos. 112, 123 & 124 of 2000 3) The base of skull shows linear fracture in anterior orinial fossa involving ethmoidal. 4) The brain was congested and edematous. Injuries were also noticed to thorax, both lungs were congested, there was a fracture of 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 ribs on right side, haemorrhage was present at fracture side. There were abdominal injuries including tear to right kidney and left kidney. In the post mortem, it is also recorded that there was haemorrhage in rectus heet at epigastric region and there was retro peritoneal haematoma in both para vertebral gutiers involving ilio-psoas.

19. Thus, the medical evidence of Dr. Rajesh Kachare (PW 2) and Dr. Shrikant Asawa (PW 14) illustrate that the internal injuries correspond to the external injuries as mentioned in Column No. 17 of post mortem notes, while injuries which were caused to the abdomen correspond to the injuries Nos.16, 20 and 23 referred in column No. 17. Injury No.21 to the thorax corresponds to the injuries referred in column No. 20 of the notes. The injuries noticed to the kidneys correspond to the injury Nos. 22 and 23 in column No.17 of the post mortem notes. Considering evidence of Dr. Sunil Jadhav (PW 1), Dr. Rajesh Kachare (PW 2), Jagdish (PW 3), Jagjerao (PW 7) and Dr. Shrikant Asawa (PW 14), there is no hesitation that the injuries suffered by Yusuf Pawar could not be accidental due to fall on the ground or hard substance, but they were caused due to torture, severe assault, by use of belt (Precisely Police belt) and kicks and fists. It was an unnatural death and homicidal. (17) Cri. Appeal Nos. 112, 123 & 124 of 2000

20. The non-identification of the accused / appellants, Sanjay and Ramesh, in the court by the two identifying witnesses cannot be taken to the logical end in their favour as it is not in dispute that these two accused / appellants had control of the guard room where the deceased was in the lock-up and entries of the lock-up register shows their persistent entry and exit in the lock-up room. They had taken deceased from lock-up room to Dr. Sunil Jadhav (PW 1). This has been established by the evidence of Yosef Shelke, Police Constable (PW 12), Malhari Kamble, Police Constable(PW 10), Suresh Bhamre, A.P.I. (PW 21) and Ananda Dongare (PW 22), P.S.O. at Loni Police Station. Exhibit 68 is the lock-up register, shows entry of removing deceased Yusuf Pawar for taking to Primary Health Centre on 1-12-1996, while return entry is at 5.20 p.m. Exhibit 69 is the report of medical check up. Exhibit 70 shows duty of accused assigned at Centry Register. Yosef Shelke (PW 12) confirms on 30th November 1996 and 1-12-1996, accused nos.2, 3, he himself and Rajguru were on guard duty, he was on guard duty from 02.00 p.m. to 04.00 p.m. on 1-12-1996, accused no.2 took charge at 04.00 p.m. Yosef Shelke (PW 12) left Police lock-up at 04.00 p.m. Accused no.2 took deceased to the Primary Health Centre. He was suggested, deceased had epilepsy. Bhimashankar Sangle, P.S.O. (PW 13) confirms, accused nos.2 and 3 were on duty during incident.

21. The learned Judge, though framed charge under Section 302 of IPC against the accused / appellants, however, converted it to Section 304 Part-II of IPC, holding that there was no intention of the accused (Police staff) to kill deceased. (18) Cri. Appeal Nos. 112, 123 & 124 of 2000

22. The gravity of the matter is aggravated by the appellants, as in order to make out a show of deceased suffering death due to poison, in the viscera bottles which were in the post mortem room of Pravara Hospital, insecticide roger was added. However, the death was flogging against the accused as Dr. Rajesh Kachare (PW 2) did not find any poisonous substance in any of the internal part of the body nor Dr. Sunil Jadhav (PW 1), while examination of deceased, noticed any froth or oedema indicating consumption of poison. The bottle of blood sample remained intact to expose violence of accused. This conduct of the accused / appellants calls for castigation. They have throttled the concept of fairness to a filament and tried to retrograde the custodial death of Yusuf Pawar to be of a case involving accident. His screams in the Police lock-up though were felt by Jagdish (PW 3) and Jagjerao (PW 7) did not shudder these accused / appellants. The record shows that these appellants were fierce while dealing with the deceased in the lock-up. I repeat, non-identification by Jagdish (PW 3) and Jagjerao (PW 7) will not dilute their evidentiary worth as the same has also to be tested with the test identification parades held by the authorities and identification effected by Jagdish (PW 3) and Jagjerao (PW 7). The mess is created by the Magistrate conducting parade when he put 7 suspects in a queue with total 45 dummies.

23. The deceased Yusuf Pawar, Jagdish (PW 3) and Jagjerao (PW 7), as pointed out earlier, were initially in Police custody from 26-11-1996 to 30-11-1996 at Shevgaon Police Station. Even if Jagdish (PW 3) says that P.S.I. Ithape of Shevgaon Police Station extend electric shocks, however, there are no lesions of such electric shocks seen on the body of deceased, by Dr. Sunil Jadhav (PW 1), Dr. Rajesh Kachare (PW 2), Dr. Shrikant Asawa (19) Cri. Appeal Nos. 112, 123 & 124 of 2000 (PW 14) and Prakash Wagmode (PW 16). The deceased Yusuf Pawar, Jagdish (PW 3) and Jagjerao (PW 7) were taken to Loni Police Station from Shevgaon court in a tempo. They were produced before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Shrirampur at 8.30 p.m. and Police custody remand was extended up to 6th December 1996. They did not record grievance against Shrirampur Police. The condition of deceased due to Police assault in the lock-up, in the night intervening 30-11-1996 - 1-12-1996 made him not to take meals, he was yelling, screaming and lying. He was moaning in the lock-up room. When deceased was yelling and moaning, Policemen from Loni Police Station dragged Yusuf Pawar from Police lock-up under the pretext that they wanted to provide him medical assistance, proved by Malhari Kamble (PW 10). The Policemen kicked Yusuf Pawar and then he was put back in lock-up. The Police on duty even criticized Jagdish (PW 3) and Jagjerao (PW 7) that they have made a show by asking Yusuf to pretend to be not keeping well. Jagdish (PW 3) and Jagjerao (PW 7) were also not spared by the Police personnel. Accused claimed that nothing has happened to Yusuf and he was simply pretending to escape from Police lock-up. Since after 6.30 p.m. on 1-12-1996, the condition due to assault was deteriorating, Yusuf was gasping, Medical Officer Dr. Sunil Jadhav (PW 1) indeed later in night nodded to the Police staff, that Yusuf is no more. This, according to Jagdish (PW 3) has happened at around 7.30 p.m., and according to PW 1 at 9.00 p.m.

24. The gravity is further added by the Police, at 10.30 p.m. one Police Constable entered into the lock-up pretending to be Medical Officer and desired to take dead body of Yusuf to the hospital. Jagdish (PW 3) resisted for removing dead body of Yusuf unless his relatives come to the (20) Cri. Appeal Nos. 112, 123 & 124 of 2000 lock-up to see him and ultimately Tahsildar, Prakash Wagmode (PW 16) on message rushed to the lock-up, he drew the inquest and also video-graphed the events.

25. When the death is caused while the deceased was in custody of the accused, basically it is for the accused to give plausible explanation which they failed to record. The record and circumstances illustrate, accused were at the Guard room duty in-charge of deceased and the injuries were by Police staff. It will be travesty of justice to hold, somebody else intrude the the lock-up, assaulted deceased and sneak. It is not that deceased was under mental aberration and rowdy and beyond control. Admission of Jagdish (PW 3) and Jagjerao (PW 7) in not identifying the accused, is the result of flaws kept by Anil Patil, C.P.I. (PW 23), it will not diminish the worth of evidence in the light of above facts. The fuel to seethe and aggravate the events is added by playing with sealed sample bottles meant for Chemical Analyser's analysis by adding Roger in it.

26. Taking total evaluation of evidence, it emerges that the accused / appellants, Sanjay and Ramesh, while on duty, brutally assaulted Yusuf Pawar and he succumbed to the injuries. Consequently, the conviction recorded by the learned Judge against accused / appellants, Sanjay and Ramesh, for an offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC or screening the evidence or a conspiracy, does not call for interference.

27. So far as appellant, Janardhan s/o. Ramji Sonwane, Home Guard, is concerned, there is no controversy that he was on duty at the material time at the Police Station. But his duty chart at Exhibit 81 shows (21) Cri. Appeal Nos. 112, 123 & 124 of 2000 that he was assisting to Police Station Officer from 8.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. on 1-12-1996 and on the same day from 08.00 p.m. till 8.00 a.m. on the next day. Dr. Sunil Jadhav (PW 1) having examined the deceased at 5.00 p.m. on 1-12-1996, has stated in his evidence that Policemen brought the deceased. However, he does not refer to any person under the style as 'Home Guard'. Jagdish (PW 3) or Jagjerao (PW 7) do not collectively refer the accused Janardhan to be a Home Guard present at the lock-up room or entered lock- up room or assaulted Yusuf.

28. Yosef Shelke, Police Constable (PW 12), accepted that Janardhan was not on duty on 1-12-1996 at the Police lock-up as he was supposed to assist Ananda Dongare (PW 22). This is supported by duty chart Exhibit 81. There is nothing to demonstrate that deceased was under the control or in the custody of Janardhan, Home Guard.

29. The evaluation of evidence also does not suggest any active role played by accused Janardhan (Home Guard) to blend Roger in the two viscera bottles subsequent to the post mortem by removing same from post mortem room of the hospital. There is nothing to suggest that he had control over the post mortem room or that he overpowered his duties as Ward Boy at Pravara Hospital. The accused / appellant, Janardhan, was not carrier of the viscera bottles to the Forensic Department, as it was not handed over personally by Dr. Shrikant Asawa (PW 14) to appellant, Janardhan (Home Guard).

30. Considering these features of the matter, I find that the appellant, Janardhan, has no role in coordinating with accused / appellants, (22) Cri. Appeal Nos. 112, 123 & 124 of 2000 Sanjay and Ramesh, to assault and eliminate Yusuf Pawar. He has not conspired to cause fabrication of evidence or to screen the offender. Consequently, conviction recorded against appellant, Janardhan, calls for interference.

31. Hence, order : (i) Criminal Appeal No. 123/2000, filed by Sanjay s/o. Yadavrao Sonwane, and Criminal Appeal No. 124/2000, filed by Ramesh s/o. Mohoniraj Pawar, are dismissed, conviction and sentence, vide judgment and order dated 29-2-2000, is confirmed. The accused / appellants, Sanjay and Ramesh, to surrender to the bail bonds up to 12th June 2012. (ii) Criminal Appeal No. 112/2000, filed by Janardhan Ramji Sonwane, is allowed, conviction and sentence in respect of him, vide judgment and order dated 29-2-2000, is set aside. Bail bonds stand cancelled. Fine, if paid by him, be reimbursed. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/kapp112etc