STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAMPAL RAMAVATAR SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Maharashtra, appellant, has preferred this appeal to challenge the judgment and order of acquittal of the respondents for the offence under Section 3 (a)of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession)Act, 1966, [in short R. P. (U. P.) Act. ].

(2.) It may be stated that the present respondent and one Shalikram Raut, then accused No. 1 (whose trial was separated) were prosecuted for the offence under Section 3 (a)of the R. P. (U. P.) Act in R. C. C. No. 476/87 before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Railway court, Nagpur. It was alleged that in the night between 23-05-87 and 24-05-87, one truck bearing No. Mh-G 6302 was apprehended on patan Wani Road by the police officials of police Station Pandharkawda. It is alleged that it was found under suspicious circumstances. The said truck was loaded with iron rail pieces. Only truck driver then Accused No. 1 Shalikram was found in the said truck. He was apprehended. It is alleged that the other persons who were in the truck ran away taking advantage of the darkness. The said truck driver, then accused no. 1 Shalikram, could not give any satisfactory explanation regarding the possession of the said rail pieces. So he was taken to the police station Mukutban along with the truck. The truck was seized by P. S. O. Shegaonkar. The statement of said Shalikram was recorded and thereafter he was arrested and transferred to Police Station Patan as the jurisdiction over the subject matter was with P. S. Pathan. Offence under Section 379, IPC vide crime No. 18/87 was registered against the accused Shalikram at Police Station Patan. The said property was found to be railway property. The permanent Ways Inspector of Central railway had reported about the theft of such property to R. P. F. Ballarsha. The then Inspector r. P. F. Ballarsha Shri. Patrikar obtained the custody of the accused Shalikram. It is alleged that during investigation, he made a confessional statement to the effect that Rampal sahu (present respondent no. l), Ashok Sharma (present Respondent No. 3) had committed theft of the said property from one Level Crossing gate and loaded the same in the truck. He further made a statement that due to overload, 4 rail pieces were thrown by them in open space of the field at about 1 furlong from the place of occurrence. The said Inspector Patrikar then took him to discover the said rail pieces, which were seized. It is alleged that said Shalikram also handed over one cash memo of Maroti Steel company at Ballarsha signed by Rampal Sahu before R. P. F. It is alleged that said Shalikram told that Rampal had given it to him for octroi purpose. Later, accused Rampal i. e. respondent no. l and Sheikh Amir present respondent no. 1 (as he died during the pendency of the proceedings, the proceedings against him stoods abated ). Later on the complaint was filed by inspector R. P. B. Ballarsha against the said accused Shalikram, respondent Rampal and respondent Sheikh, respondent Ashok Sharma and one Namdeo. The accused Namdeo could not be apprehended. The accused Shalikram also did not attend the trial, so the trial was proceeded only against the present respondent no. 1 Rampal, deceased respondent No. 2 Sheikh amir and respondent no. 3 Ashok Sharma.

(3.) Learned A. P. P. Shri. D. B. Patel, submitted that as per the provisions of R. P. (U. P.) Act, confessional statement of the accused are admissible in evidence. According to him, the rail pieces found in the truck were found to be railway properties. The statement of driver Shalikram clearly incriminates the present respondents. As such, he contended that the circumstances brought on record clearly established that the respondents/accused were involved in the incident and commission of theft of the said rail properties and as the said shalikram was found in possession of the said railway property in a truck driven by him and he had made a confessional statement to implicate the present respondents, the present respondents are liable for the offence under section 3 (a) of R. P. (U. P.) Act. He relied on the observations of the Apex Court in The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Vyas tewari, 1981 AIR(SC) 635 to contend that confessional statement made to R. P. F. official is admissible as they are not police officials.