# '· ' v. 'STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC - **Citation:** [1994] 2 S.C.R. 179 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1994 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 201of1989 - **Bench:** Dr. A.S. Anand, Faizan Uddin - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/v-state-of-maharashtra-etc-12176 - **Pages:** 29 ## Headnote B Evidence Ac~S. 133, S. J l~onviction of an accused on the un-cor- ( roborated testimony of an accomplice-Rule of prndence as per illustration (b) of S. 114-Accomplice does not deserve to be relied upon without corroboration in material particulars. c Criminal Triaf-Status of after grant of pardon-Duty of Coult-The status of an accused changes into that of a witness only after grant of pardon-Statement must be recorded immediately after grant of pardon. S. 164 and Criminal Procedure Cod~Statement of approvel'-Value D of corroboration of evidenc&-Only sought when approver's evidence is other- .... wise acceptable . Very detailed nature of evidence of approver after 3 years of occun-ence and making improvements upon the confessional statement lacks authenE ticity. Sequence of examination as a witness-An approver should ordinarily be examined as a first witness at a trial and not at the end when he has had occasion to know the other evidence led by the prosecution. F ..... ldentificatioit-ldentification in absence of any test identification when accused were wearing masks and were not known to the witnesses-Not trnstworthy. Investigating Agencies-Role of-Must set fairly and honestly and must G not act in a manner which shakes the confidence of the common man in the system of dispensation .of criminal justice. . ..,. Panch Witnesses-Recoveries made at different pieces on different dates at the instance of different accused in the presence of the same Panch witness-Not reliable. H 179 \ 1994 1994 } 180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 2 S.C.R. A According to the prosecution two watchmen on construction site / near a highway were assaulted by 9 assailants who then proceeded to { . waylay six other persons passing on the highway and violently assaulted them and escaped from the spot :after committing dacoity and consequfntly 5 victims of the assault died as a result of the injuries. Injured witness D B gave a statement which formed the basis for the F.I.R. No arrest was made for about 4 days leading to tension at the town C and there were demonsru· lion in the town against the police inaction. One R who later on turned an approver was arrested 4 days after ) the event in connection with an allegation regarding an innocous incident c involving touching of a bicycle under circumstances and for reasons not satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. During Interrogation, R dis· closed bis involvement In the sensational dacoity 4 days earlier and con· sequent to the information disdosed by R, all other accused and one more person M were arrested, M, however, died in police custody within 3 days D of bis arrest. 'Thereafter accused R made a voluntary statement under S. 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Judicial Magistrate giving details of the crime. This led to some recoveries and arrest of two more " persons. On grant of pardon R turned an approver. The prosecution in support of Its case primarily relied upon the testimony of the approver, the statements of the injured witnesses and recoveries of articles allegedly E belonging to the dead persons. The defence of the accused was one of denial and false implication. Accepting ·the approver"s statement the trial Court convicted all the eight accused u.nder S.302/14!1 I.P.C. as well as Sections 307 and 395 I.P.C. F and sentenced them to deatln. In appeal and coltlirmation proceeding In the High Court, 3 accused Wt're acquitted and the conviction under S. 302 .II' I.P.C. and consequent death, sentences were maintained in respect of 5 accused. All the 5 convicted accused and the State (against the acquittal of 3 accused persons) appealled to this Court. G Allowing the appeals o[ the accused and dismissing that of the State, this Court HELD : 1. That the circumstances surrounding the initial arrest of the approver R were curious and the prosecution concocted a false story ,,. .. about the arrest of R who was planted as an accused In order to silence the H large discontent against th ## Text _Characters 0–39,745 of 68,407. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39745 for what follows._ \ RAMPAL PITHWAS RAHIDASS AND ORS. A '· ' v. 'STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC. MARCH 1, 1989 [DR. A.S. ANAND AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] B Evidence Ac~S. 133, S. J l~onviction of an accused on the un-cor- ( roborated testimony of an accomplice-Rule of prndence as per illustration (b) of S. 114-Accomplice does not deserve to be relied upon without corroboration in material particulars. c Criminal Triaf-Status of after grant of pardon-Duty of Coult-The status of an accused changes into that of a witness only after grant of pardon-Statement must be recorded immediately after grant of pardon. S. 164 and Criminal Procedure Cod~Statement of approvel'-Value D of corroboration of evidenc&-Only sought when approver's evidence is other- .... wise acceptable . Very detailed nature of evidence of approver after 3 years of occun-ence and making improvements upon the confessional statement lacks authenE ticity. Sequence of examination as a witness-An approver should ordinarily be examined as a first witness at a trial and not at the end when he has had occasion to know the other evidence led by the prosecution. F ..... ldentificatioit-ldentification in absence of any test identification when accused were wearing masks and were not known to the witnesses-Not trnstworthy. Investigating Agencies-Role of-Must set fairly and honestly and must G not act in a manner which shakes the confidence of the common man in the system of dispensation .of criminal justice. . ..,. Panch Witnesses-Recoveries made at different pieces on different dates at the instance of different accused in the presence of the same Panch witness-Not reliable. H 179 \ 1994 1994 } 180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 2 S.C.R. A According to the prosecution two watchmen on construction site / near a highway were assaulted by 9 assailants who then proceeded to { . waylay six other persons passing on the highway and violently assaulted them and escaped from the spot :after committing dacoity and consequfntly 5 victims of the assault died as a result of the injuries. Injured witness D B gave a statement which formed the basis for the F.I.R. No arrest was made for about 4 days leading to tension at the town C and there were demonsru· lion in the town against the police inaction. One R who later on turned an approver was arrested 4 days after ) the event in connection with an allegation regarding an innocous incident c involving touching of a bicycle under circumstances and for reasons not satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. During Interrogation, R dis· closed bis involvement In the sensational dacoity 4 days earlier and con· sequent to the information disdosed by R, all other accused and one more person M were arrested, M, however, died in police custody within 3 days D of bis arrest. 'Thereafter accused R made a voluntary statement under S. 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Judicial Magistrate giving details of the crime. This led to some recoveries and arrest of two more " persons. On grant of pardon R turned an approver. The prosecution in support of Its case primarily relied upon the testimony of the approver, the statements of the injured witnesses and recoveries of articles allegedly E belonging to the dead persons. The defence of the accused was one of denial and false implication. Accepting ·the approver"s statement the trial Court convicted all the eight accused u.nder S.302/14!1 I.P.C. as well as Sections 307 and 395 I.P.C. F and sentenced them to deatln. In appeal and coltlirmation proceeding In the High Court, 3 accused Wt're acquitted and the conviction under S. 302 .II' I.P.C. and consequent death, sentences were maintained in respect of 5 accused. All the 5 convicted accused and the State (against the acquittal of 3 accused persons) appealled to this Court. G Allowing the appeals o[ the accused and dismissing that of the State, this Court HELD : 1. That the circumstances surrounding the initial arrest of the approver R were curious and the prosecution concocted a false story ,,. .. about the arrest of R who was planted as an accused In order to silence the H large discontent against the police due to its inability to apprehend the f RAMPAL v. STATEOFMAHARASHTRA 181 culprits. The recovery of a bag at the instance of R was also not free from A ' doubt due to conflict in versions regarding its contents. The version in R's confessional statement under S. 164 Cr. P.C. dated 21-7-1984 was departed from in his application dated 17-1-1987 seeking bail where he disclaimed any knowledge about the incident and disclosed police pressure on him to become an eye witness. R, the approver was throughout under pressure to B become an approver due to the fact that the police was under constant attack from the media and the public and even his first confessional statelnent was not a voluntary one having come a couple of days after the death of another accused in police custody. The examination of Ras an approver at the fag end of the trial and not as the first prosecution witness enabled him to know the other evidence led in the case so that he could depose c accordingly in support of the prosecution. [197-G; 202-C, ff; 207-A, BJ 2. Identification of all the appellants In the absence of any earlier test Identification parade when the assailants were alleged to be \Vearing masks and were unknown to the victims or the injured witnesses, is of no D significance. The conduct of the approver in going away without a penny and the co-accused permitting him to do so. defies logic and common sense. The very detailed statement of the approver at the trial recorded more than 3 years after the occurrence and travelling far beyond the confessional statement, makes it difficult to believe its authenticity. The Importance of the discrepancies has to be considered to test the credlblllty and trustworE thiness of the approver and therefore Is not a reliable witness, his arrest Intrinsically unnatual and his self confessed participation in the crime without taking any active part Is unacceptable. R's statement is not worthy of credence and does not Inspire confidence. [202-F; 203-B; 205-EJ 3. Long settled practice that S. 133 of the Evidence Act must be read F with the provisions of illustration (b) to S.114 of the Evidence Act and while law permits the conviction of an accused person on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, the rule of prudence is that an accomplice does not generally deserve to be relied upon unless his statement is corroborated in material particulars. (187-E, FJ G Ram Narain v. State of Rajasthan, (1973) 3 S.C.C. 805, relied upon. i, 4. The status of an accused changes into that of a witness after grant of pardon and the law enjoins the courts to record the statement of the approver immediately after pardon is granted to him so that he may find H 182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 2 S.C.R. A himself bound by that statement and failure to do so would render him liable for prosecution. It is only when the approver's evidence is considered otherwise acceptable that the Court applies its mind to the rule that the approver's testimony needs corroboration in material particulars connect.- ing or tending to connect each one of the accused with the crime charged. B [206 B-D] 5. The corroborating pieces olr evidence of identification by the 3 injured witnesses in the absence of any earlier test identification parade or the recoveries made at different dates and different places at the instance of different accused in the presence of the same panch witness C P.W. 27 are not trustworthy or reliable. [206-E, F] 6. Investigating agencies must act fairly and honestly and not resort to fabricating false evidence or creating false clues only with a view to secure conviction because such acts shake the confidence of the common man not only In the investigation a~:ency but also in the system of dispenD sation of criminal justice. Let no guilty man go unpunished but let the end not justify the means. Proper results must be obtai!led by proper means otherwise it would be an Invitation to anarchy. (207-C-E) E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 201of1989. From the Judgment and Order dated 31.10.80 of the Bombay High Court in Crl. A. No. 2 of 1988. WITH F Criminal Appeal No. 466 of 1989. G From the Judgment and Order dated 27, 28 & 31.10.88 of the Bombay High Court in Crl. A. No. 2 of 1988. A.K. Sanghi for the Appellant in Cr!. A. No. 201/89. S.M. Jadhav and A.S. Bhasme for the State of Maharashtra. Shiv Pujan Singh, Rajeev Kumar and Sunil Kumar Singh for the ! ,. Respondent No. 1-3. >- • H The Judgment of the Court was delivered by \ RAMPAL v. STATEOFMAHARASHTRA [DR.ANAND,J.] 183 ~ DR. ANAN~, J. These two appeals, by special leave, arise out of a A common judgment of the High Court of Judicature. Appellate Side, at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) dated 27th, 28th and 31st October 1988, confirming the death sentence passed by the Addi. Sessions Judge, Chandrapur for an offence under Section 302 IPC on five appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 201/1989. Three convicts were acquitted by the High Court and B Criminal Appeal No. 466/1989 has been filed by the State of Maharashtra against their acquittal. This judgment will dispose of both the appeals. Nine accused persons, namely, Rampa!, Fulchand·, Babula!, Sheoprasad @ Dhunda Chunbaliya, Basawan, Shamlal, Pratap, Ramkishor and Ramcharan, were sent up for trial for commiting the murder of Tanba C Gedam, Baldeosingh, Raman Chandra, Prakash Vehdakar and Raju Deshmukh and for causing injuries to Surendra PW31, Mahendrasingh PW33 and Doma PW5 on 3.7.1984 between 7.30 p.m. and 10 p.m. on the Highway Chandrapur-Ballarshah Road while committing dacoity. (One other accused who had also been arrayed by the police died before the trial in police custody). They were tried for offences under Sections 302, 307, 342 D read with Section 149 and Sections 395 and 396 of IPC. Accused No. 1 Ramcharan Rahidass turned an approver and was examined as such. The learned Addl Sessions Judge accepting the testimony of the approver and the other prosecution evidence, convicted all the eight accused mentioned above and awarded the sentence of death to all the eight accused for the E offence under Section 302/149 IPC, and for the offences under Sections 307 and 395, the accused were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months and to pay Ji fine of Rs. 50/- each and in default they were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven days. The learned Addi. Sessions Judge submitted the proceedings to the High Court for confirma- ' tion of the sentence of death and the convicted eight accused also filed a F · criminal appeal challenging their conviction and sentence in the High Court. While the appeal of appellants Basawan Rahidas, Pratap Hahidas and Ramkishor Rahidas was accepted and they were acquitted of all the charges, the appeal filed by Rampa! and four others was dismissed and their conviction under Section 302 IPC was maintained. The High Court G also confirmed the sentence of death on Rampa! and the other four appellants, who have filed Crimianl Appeal No. 201/1989. The State of Maharashtra has filed Criminal Appeal No. 466/1989 against the acquittal ~ ~ of Basawan and two others. H 184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 2 S.C.R. A The prosecution case is that on 3rd July 1984, near K.M. No. 9 on Chandrapur-Ballarshah Road which is a part of Highway No. 84, construction of two buildings of a seed centre was in progres.,. Doma and Tanba were acting as watchmen at the construction site. At about 7.30 p.m., while Tanba and Doma were present at tbe site, they heard the approaching B movement of some persons. One of those persons on reaching near Doma and Tanba picked up a bamboo stick. Four other persons surrounded Doma while two others started assaulting Tanba with bricks, as a result whereof Tanba fell down. The miscreants assaulted Doma and Tanba with / ' { bricks, stones and rafters and tied them by removing the dhoti which T anba ' was wearing and dragged them both to a distance of about 25 ft. and C ultimately threw them in a ditch, which was at some distance away from the main road. The assailants on hearing the sound of a two wheeler approaching, went up to the main road and assaulted the rider of the two wheeler Raman Chandra. After giving beating to him, he was dragged and thrown near the road. Mahendrasingh and Baldeosingh were coming on a D scooter from the Ballarshah side and they were also assaulted by the assailants with rafters and sticks. A bag containing Rs. 7040/- and some documents was snatched from them. As a result of the beating, , Msahendrasingh and Baldeosingh became unconscious. Baldeosingh died on the spot. The assailants threw away his body and the scooter on one side of the road. Mahendrasingb who had also become unconscious was E later on removed to a hospital at Nagpur where he regained consciousness after four days. Prakash Vehadkar was also passing on the road on his cycle at about the same time. He was stopped, beaten and killed by the assailants. Raju Deshmukh was wiving a scooter with Surendra Chopra and was passing through on that road, when his scooter was stopped. Both of them F were assaulted by the miscreants as a result whereof Raju Deshmukh fell off his scooter and was trapped under it. The miscreants then caused some ' injuries to Surendra and removed his gold ring, wrist watch and Rs. 250/- and left him on hearing the sound of another scooter approaching that side. Surendra escaped and ran over some distance and requested one Mumtaz Ahmed, who was passi111g by the road on his scooter, for a lift. Mumtaz G Ahmed took Surendra, to the house of his brother at Ballorshah. After rendering some medical aid to Surendra, his brother and others went in search of Raju Deshmukh but could not locate him or his scooter. While going to the site, where Raju and Surendra had been belaboured, the r t assistance of the police sub-inspector Chandrapur was also taken and he H RAMPAL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [DR.ANAND,J.] 185 accompanied them to the spot and on reaching the place of occurrence A ). ' they come to know about the killing of 4-'.i persons. They later on found the dead body of Raju Deshmukh. The dead body of Tanba was also found there. PSI Godekar of the Traffic Branch at Chandrapur was on the HighB way at about 2210 hrs. on July 3, 1984 when on learning that some dead bodies were lying by the side of the road, he alongwith constable Ram Das reached the place of occurrence. He found the . dead bodies lying on the two sides of the road. Leaving head constable Ram Das to guard the spot, PSI Gadekar went and apprised Pl Thakur of Chandrapur Pokice Station, who rushed to the scene of occurrence and found three dead bodies and c an injured person asking for water. Near about the same place, two more dead bodies and injured Mahendrasingh were also found. Both the injured persons were sent to the General Hospital, Chandrapur in a trakker belonging to the Maharashtra State Electricity Board. Sub-Inspector Bante of Chandrapur City Police Station went to the General Hospital D Chandrapur and recorded the statement of injured PW Dama, which forms the basis of the First Information Report. A case was registered and investigation taken in hand. During the investigation, the inquest report of Prakash Vahadkar, whose name could be gathered from a tobacco box which was lying near him as well as from the cycle which bore his name was prepared and a panchnama drawn up. Inquest reports of the other E dead bodies were also prepared. The blood stained clothes of the injured were seized vide separate panchnamas. Some more articles were seized from different places in the neighbourhood of the scene of crime vide separate panchnama in the morning of 4th July 1984. The dead bodies of Raman, Raju, Prakash, Baldeosingh and Tanba were sent for post mortem F ' examination to the General Hospital Chandrapur where Dr. Murkey conducted the post mortem eXdlllination on the dead bodies and submitted the post-mortem reports. We do not consider it necessary it necessary or expedient to G reproduce the injuries noticed on each of the deceased, as the same have been given in detail both by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge and the High Court in the judgment and no controversy surrounds them. Suffice it to ~ - notice that the injuries found on each of the dead bodies were, according to Dr. Murkey, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased. H I 186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 2 S.C.R. A Dr. Lohare PW examined injured Mahendrasingh PW on 4th July ' .. 1984 and found swelling on his ri1~t fore-arm lower part, and after an X-ray examination it was discovered that Mahendrasingh had suffered fracture of the right ulta. Doma PW was also examined by Dr. Lohare, who found two lacerations on his right occipital region and one laceration on B the central occipital region with swelling on the right hand also. Surendra PW was examined by Dr. Lohare and it was found that he had swelling on both the hands, lower part of the right fore-are, left knee, right postcuricular of scalp, lacerations on the left and right forehead, contusion on the right lower thorasic region, tenderness on the left shoulder and an abrasion on the right shoulder. There was no clue as to the culprits in the c case. Right from the start of the investigation on 3.7.1984, till 7.7.1984 no arrest was made. None of the injured prosecution witnesses could throw any light on the identity of their as•>ailants or those who had committed the murders on 3.7.1984, as according to them assault had been committed by some men wearing masks in the darkness of the night. It appears that since D the investigation did not yield any results with regard to the crime committed on the Highway, demonstrations against police inaction were held at Chandrapur and a complete l:iandh was also observed for one day. , Unprecedented tension prevailed in Chandrapur on account of ineffective and slip shod investigation by the police. Both the public and the press E continued to blame the police for their inaction and the police authorities were naturally concerned. On 7.7.1984 accused No.l Ramcharan, who later on truned an approver in this case, was sighted by one Manohar Thikare PW near the metre-gauge line which passes from Chandrapur and goes towards Gondia. F He was arrested in village Rajoli within the jurisdiction of Police Station Mui in connection with some other ease. We shall, in the latter part of the , judgment, deal with the story of his arrest in some details. According to the prosecution ease, Ramcharan accused is alleged to have disclosed, during interrogation, at Police Station Mui that he bad taken part in a ease G of dacoity on Ballarsbah road. On getting this information the police officer of police station Mui informed tlie Superintendent of Police, Chandrapur and on his direction Ramcharan accused was transferred from Police Station Mui to Chandrapur Police Station. It is then alleged that after his transfer to Chandrapur Police Station at 2 a.m., his statement came to be - ! recorded by the police at Chandrapur Police Station and as a sequence of H the information given by him, all other accused persons along with one \ RAMPAL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (DR.ANAND,J.] 187 Murari Deshmukh were arrested. Murari, however, died within three days A of his arrest while in police custody. According to the prosecution, Ramcharan accused made a voluntary statement under Section 164 before the Judicial Magistrate !st Class on 21.7.1984 giving details of the crime. Armed with that statement of Ramcharan accused, the investigating agency allegedly effected some recoveries after arresting the other accused persons as well as at the instance of the approver himself. Ramcharan accused, subsequently turned an approver and the accused were put on trial. B The prosecution with a view to connect the accused with the crime, relied primarily upon the testimony of the approver, besides the statements of the injured witnesses and certain recoveries, alleged to be of the articles C belonging to various deceased and the injured persons effected under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The defence of the accused was one of denial and false implication. Rampa! and Basawan, the acquitted accused, also pleaded alibi. Before dealing with the statements of the eye-witnesses and the alleged recoveries, we shall first deal with the statement of the D approver Ramcharan PW, an accomplice of the accused, who turned an approver on grant of pardon. LEGAL POSITION: Section 133 of the Evidence Act expressly provides that an accomplice is a competent witness against his co-accused and it renders admissible the testimony of an accomplice against his co-accused. It has, however, been a long settled practice of law that Section 133 of the Evidence Act must be read along with the provisions of illustration (b) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Section 114 of the Evidence Act empowers the court to presume the existence of certain facts and illustration (b) in express terms says that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he E F is corroborated in material particulars. Thus, it follows, that whereas law permits the conviction of an accused person on the basis of the μncorroborated testimony of '"" accomplice by virtue of the provisions of Section G 133 who is treated as a competent witness, the rule of prudence which has rightly been always accepted by the courts, embodied in illustration (b) of P ~. Section 114 of the Evidence Act, strikes a note of warning/caution to the courts that an accomplice does not generally deserve to be relied upon, unless his testimony is corroborated in material particulars. Thus, as a matter of practice and prudence the courts have held that the testimony of H 188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 2 S.C.R. A an approver may be accepted in evidence for recording conviction of an accused person provided it rec1!ives corroboration from direct or circumstantial evidence in material, particulars. The courts have generally looked upon with suspicion the statement of an approver because he is considered to be a person of low morals and not a wholly trustworthy B c D E F G person who for the sake of earning pardon for himself is willing to let down his erstwhile accomplices and therefore before recording conviction Courts insist upon independent corroboration of his testimony. lo Ram Narain v. State of Rajasthan, [1973] 3 SCC 805 at 811, Dua, J. while speaking for the Court dealt with the subject and observed : "An approver who is admittedly guilty of the crime is an accomplice who has betrayed his associates and has apparently sought pardon for saving his own skin. Jn other words he has purchased complete immunity for his prosecution at the expenses of his associates by agreeing to give evidence against them for the prosecution. He is, therefore, presumed not to be a man of high character or a fair witness. His pardon being conditional, to please the prosecution he may well weave some false detail into the true details of the prosecution story and may also falsely involve some innocent person. There is thus a real danger of his telling a story true in general outline but containning some untruth which he can easily work into the story. It is for this reason that the courts as a matter of prudence and caution anxiously look for some corroboration to satisfy their conscience that the al'prover's testimony which is clearly admissible is allso worthy of belief credit. One can of course visualise an accomplice who is genuinely repentant for the commission of his crime and truly desires to make a clean breast of the whole affair by way of penitence. But even in such cases the court has to judicially determine the extent to which his uncorroborated testimony can be considered as trustworthy by looking lo the other relevant material and the attending circumstances on the basis of which the accused can be safely convicted. The rule which seems to emerge from the foregoing discussion and judicial decisions is that the necessity of corroboration as a matter of prudence except when it is safe to dispense with such corroboration must be clearly present to the mind of the judge." H ARREST OF RAMCHARAN AND GRANT OF PARDON TO HIM: I ' > , \ RAMPAL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [DR.ANAND,J.] 189 The above principle has stood the test of time and it is with this A background present in our minds that we shall examine the testimony of Ramcharan approver PW49. How he came to be arrested? How did he became a participant in the crime? What role did he play in the crime? When and how he decided to be an approver? These are some of the questions which we shall have to consider to determine the creditworthiB ness of his testimony and the nature and the extent of corroboration which is required before his testimony can be relied upon in support of the prosecution case. The approver appeared as PW49 at the trial. He was arrested on 7.7.84 in some other connection and till his arrest as already noticed, the C investigation had drawn a blank in this case and was being criticised both by the media and the public alike for not solving the crime and appears to have been under tremendous pressure. How did the approver come to be arrested? One Monohar Tikare PWl, according to tbe prosecution case, was D collecting leaves by the side of Rajoli Railway Station and had climbed on a tree for that purpose leaving his cycle by the side of the road. He found approver Ramcharan coming that side and touching his cycle. Manohar PWl shouted at Ramcharan PW 49 and got down from from the tree. The approver started running way. Manohar got down from the tree and riding E on his bicycle, instead of chasing the approver, who had 'touched' his bicycle went home to inform his brother, Sudhakar PW2 about what he had seen near the tree. Both Manohar PWl and Sudhakar PW2 then came back to the spot and started looking for the approver and found him standing on the water tank near the Railway line. They caught hold of him and took him to the house of Tulsiram, Police Patil PW3, who sent Sudhakar PW2 with Ramcharan approver to Police Station at Mui with his report Ex.29, which makes an interesting reading and reads thus : To The Police Statiot Officer, Police Station, Mui. Subject : In respect of Cection 41/109 Cr.P.C. It was suggested to Chandel PW41 during the cross oxamination that since in the area, public discontent had been daily increasing, therefore, a false story was concocted and Ramcharn accused was planted as an aceused. he denied the suggestion. The prosecution has attempted to show that Manohar PWl and Sudhakar PW2 were indeE pendent witnesses, who had made a complaint to police patil Tulsiram PW3 in a routine manner and that Tulsiram Patil PW3 sent Ramcharan to Police. Station Mui also in a routine manner alongwith his report in the official routine. The truth however, appears to be otherwise. During his deposition PWl Manohar, after stating that Ramcharan was sent to the F Police station by the police patil tulsiram PW3 along with his brother Sudhakar PW2 and Vilas Kilake Police Kotwal at about 10 a.m., admitted in his cross examination that ''Police patil Tulsirom is my cousin brother". He, therefore, proverbilly speaking let the cat out of the bag ! It appears to us that Tulsiram Patil PW3 utilized the services of his G cousins Manohar PWl and Sudhakar PW2 to plant Ramcharan and have him arrested under Section 109 !PC at police station Mui with the assistance of PW41 sub-inspector Manohar Singh. The entire story regarding arrest of Ramcharan appears to be a police i:oncoction and padding with a view to silence the large discontent against the police on account of its H ! 192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 2 S.C.R. A inaction to apprehend culprits, who were responsible for committing five 1 B c D E F G H murders on the Highway, beo:ides causing injuries to three witnesses. At this stage it would also be relevant to take notice of the report sent by PW41 Chandel while transferring Ramcharan to Police Station · Chandrapur City. Ex.197 is llhat report and it also makes an interesting reading. It reads as follows : To, The Police Inspector, Police Station, Chandrapur City. Police Station Mui, Date:S.7.1984 Sub : Regarding trasfor of Ramcharan son of Rameshray Rahidas, the accused arrested under Section 41(2), 109 of Cr. P.C. at Police Station Mul and his relevant documents. Sir, Report is submitted as under : On 7.7.1984, Police Patil of village Rajoli sent a person named Ramcharan Rameshray Rahidas and written report to the Police Station Mui, through Sudbakar Shivram Thikre. It was stated in the said report that the person named Ramcharan Rahidas was caught while he was trying to take away the bicycle of Manohar Shivram Thikre. On the basis of the said report I personally"went to vi11age Rajo\i and made an inquiry about the said incident. During the course of inquiry the following facts were came to know: At about 7 a.m. Manohar Shivram Thikre went on a bicycle to pluck the leaves of Palas tree. He kept the bicycle on foot track and climbed up the Palas tree. When he was plucking the leaves of Palas tree, the aforesaid person named Ramcharan Rahidas was going by the road. At that time he (Ramcharan Rahidas) touched the said bicycle, as a result of which Manohar Thikre shouted. On that Ramcharan ran away from there. Thereafter Manohar Thikre went to the village by the said bicycle aud brought his brother . ) ' RAMPAL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [DR.ANAND,J.J 193 Sudhakar Thikre on the said bicycle. At that time Ramcharan was A on the cistern. Then the said two brothers caught Ramcharan Rahidas and brought him to the Police patil of Rajoli. On the basis of the said inquiry since it reveals tha~ the said . incident was not theft, there was no intention of committing theft of a bicycle, the accused Ramcharan Rahidas has no place of residence, B he has been arrested at 1935 hrs. of 7.7.84, under Section 41(2), 109 Cr.P.C On making minute inquiry to the accused Ramcharan Rahidas regarding other crimes, he disclosed that he was related to Crime C No. 135/84 under Sections 396 and 397 of I.P.C. registered at Police Station Chandrapur City. Since accused Ramcharan Rahidas is related to the said crime, he has been transferred to the crime registered at police Station Chandrapur City. Relevant documents have been also submitted alongwith the report for taking proper action. (Emphasis Supplied) D Sd Chandel, P.SJ. Mui, Dt. 8.7.1984 PW 56 Jamdar Singh who at the relevant time was attached as Police E Inspector at Police Station Chandrapur, while deposing about the transfer of accused Ramcharan,stated that on 8th July 1984, the D.S.P. Chandrapur informed him on telephone that one person in connection with the decoitycum-murder which took place on 3rd July 1984 on Chandrapur-Ballarshah road was arrested at Mui and his name is Ramcharan, and on getting that F information PW56 sent a jeep to Mui to bring Ramcharan approver to the City Police Station. PSO Chandel of Police Station Mui came along with the accused to police station and handed over the papers regarding the arrest of Ramcharan at about 2.00 a.m. On what basis Crime No. 135/84 under Section 396 and 347 !PC Police Station Chandrapur City came to be G incorporated in the transfer note Ex. 197 (supra) by PWl Chandel of Police Station Mui has not been explained by the prosecution ? After interrogating Ramcharan, PW 56 J amdar Singh placed him under arrest and went on to depose that 11he gave me. infOrmation about the persons involed in the commission of offence of dacoity-cum-murder H 194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) 2 S.C.R. A which took place on Chandrapur-Ballarshah Road. On his information, I caught all the accused persons and deceased Murari." While Ramcharan was in police custody on 8th July 1984, be allegedly disclosed in presence of panches, Fakru and Patel, that he had kept a bag at the house of accused Babu Lal and that he was willing to produce the same. His stateme;nt Ex. B 105 was reduced into writing. Accused Ramcharan then went with the police party, in a police jeep, to the house of Babu Lal and after going inside the house, brought out one black bag Ex. 144 which was seized vi