STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. LIMBAJI SAYAJI MHASKE, SARPANCH GRAM PANCHAYAT, SINDKHED RAJA, TAQ. MEHKAR, DIST. BULDANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Maharashtra has filed this appeal challenging the order of acquittal recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehkar, in Criminal Case No. 135 of 1972, wherein the present respondent was tried for an offence under section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts in brief are as under:

(2.) The accused respondent is the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat of village known as Sindkhed Raja in Taluq Mehkar. There was an accidental death of one Murlidhar on 3-2-1972. It appears that Murlidhar while working on sugarcane crusher got entangled in the engine and got serious injuries, which ultimately took his death. The persons who were then present and his relatives brought him in the hospital before Murlidhar was actually dead for treatment. The treatment started. At that time Murlidhar was unconscious. Dr. Vithaldas (P.W.4) was treating him after examining him but it appears that he died immediately at about 6.15 p.m. After his death, the relatives of Murlidhar requested the doctor to hand over the dead body for cremation. The doctor found that it was an accidental death. It was not natural death. Therefore, he told them that he would not hand over the dead body till Information was given to the police. It appears that the relatives tried to force Dr. Vithaldas but he did not listen and he made a report to the police out-post and as per his report two police constables came at the hospital. One remained at the hospital and the other went to the Police Station of Kingaon Raja. Kingaon Raja is at a distance of 8 to 10 miles from Sindkhed Raja where Vasant Rajaram Patil was working as a Police Sub-Inspector. Shri Patil received the information at about 11.15 p.m. on 3-2-1972 itself that Murlidhar met an accidental death. Accordingly, he registered the crime as accidental death bearing No. 5/72 at his Police Station. There was no conveyance for him to go to Sindkhed Raja that time. Therefore, he directed constable Jagannath to proceed along with the diary to Head Constable Vishwanath who was in charge of the out post. He also reached Sindkhed Raja at about 10 a.m. on the next day morning. Thereafter he took charge of the investigating under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he was investigating into the cause of an accidental death and was examining the witnesses. At that time, he noticed that several relatives of Murlidhar had surrounded the dispensary and they were demanding the dead body. In the opinion of the relatives, the dead body was lying since evening in the hospital and they wanted it early for cremation. Before the investigation of the accidental death was taken in hand, inquest was held". The accused had acted as a panch to the inquest panch-nama drawn by the Sub-Inspector. At that time, it appears that there was a casual talk between the Police Sub-Inspector Shri Patil and accused in which Patil, P.S.I. told the accused that he was a responsible person as a Sarpanch and as such he should not stand surety to those persons who are accused in prohibition cases. This particular reference by the P.S.I. aggrieved the accused and he told him that he was at liberty to stand surety to any person he likes. It appears that the accused was not satisfied with this reply but had taken away two persons who were present at the time of accidental death of Murlidhar from the hospital to the Office of the Gram Panchayat. Those two persons were necessary to be examined by the P.S.I. and it appears that the trouble started on account of this fact. As those two persons could not be examined by the P.S.I. he could not complete his report of accidental death and, therefore, could not hand over the dead body. The relatives were enraged with the P.S.I. because he was delaying in handing over the dead body of Murlidhar. By 12 or 12.30 noon a large crowed collected in front of the hospital and one of their leaders approached the P.S.I. to hand over the dead body to which the P.S.I. replied that they should not gather in large crowd around the hospital and the dead body would not be handed over till the investigation was complete and the two witnesses were examined.

(3.) The accused was infuriated with this conduct and at about 1.30 noon he telephoned Shri M.R. Reddy, the complainant in this case who was working as Superintendent of Police, Buldana at the material time. At about that time Shri Reddy had gone to his bungalow for taking lunch. He learnt on the telephone which he received that the accused was making the telephone in his capacity as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Sindkhed Raja. The accused told Reddy that there was murder on 3-2-1972 at Sindkhed. P.S.I. came to Sindkhed Raja quite late. The P.S.I. was not taking steps according to law but he was demanding Rs. 1000 from him to hush up the murder. The accused, therefore, wanted Mr. Reddy to come personally to Sindkhed Raja and to enquire into the matter. Hearing this telephonic message, Shri Reddy felt the gravity of it as there was a serious charge of corruption against the P.S.I. who wanted Rs. 1000 as hush-money to suppress the offence of a murder. He, therefore, immediately sent his immediate subordinate S.D.P.O. Shri Shankar Mahajan, who reached Sindkhed Raja at about 5.45 p.m. He paid visit to the Primary Health Centre where he found mob of 400 to 500 persons gathered. The mob was demanding the return of the dead body from the medical officer; Shri Mahajan also saw the accused as well as the P.S.I. and asked both of them about the matter. The P.S.I. told him that the accused had prevented two material witnesses from coming forward to tell the truth, and, therefore, the dead body could not be returned. The Sub-Inspector further told him that it was not a case of murder but it was a case of an accidental death of one Murlidhar Sakharam Mate. Shri Mahajan then directed the accused to produce those two witnesses before him. Accused obeyed the orders of Mahajan, produced those two witnesses. The P.S.I. then recorded the statements and thereafter the dead body was handed over to the relatives. At this stage, the accused presented two reports before Shri Mahajan. One is Exh. 14 signed by him and some persons and the other is Exh. 15 which is signed by several other villagers. They are common in contents and the allegations made in those applications were that the P.S.I. deliberately began to ask questions tothe accused which had no connection with the panchanama and he demanded Rs. 1000 for handing over the dead body and took 4 to 5 hours for completing panchanama. Thereafter it appears that Shri Jadhao made some enquiry and found the allegations false. He accordingly submitted a report which is also filed in this case as Exh. 16 but I propose to exclude itfrom my consideration. The prosecution cannot rely on a compendious report which incorporates the statements of several persons in the absence of their evidence recorded in the Court. I would, therefore, consider the evidence for the purposes of the appeal as recorded by the trial Magistrate. After the report of Shri Jadhao was received, a complaint was filed by Shri M.R. Reddy in the Court of the Magistrate, First Class, Mehkar against the accused under section 182 of the Indian Penal Code incorporating the false information given by the accused to him on the telephone and requesting to take steps against the accused.