1 appln345.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.345 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant. Vs. Krushna @ Babu Chandrashekhar Umai & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.P.S.Hingorani APP for the State. Mr.Neelesh Vasant Kalantri for respondent no.1. CORAM : NARESH H PATIL & MRS.MRIDULA R BHATKAR, JJ DATED : 20TH JUNE, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. This application is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nashik passed in Sessions Case No.50 of 2007 in State of Maharashtra Vs. Krushna @ Babu Chandrashekhar Umai and Others. 3. Sanjay Vishwanath Kadam was resident of Nashik. His cousin Yuvraj Pundalik Kadam was the owner of Shriraj Wines situated at Vasant Market, Old Gangapur Naka. The complainant - Sanjay used to assist and manage the affairs of Shriraj Wines. It is alleged that at 11 pm on 3.8.2005 Dr.Ravindra Manik Deshmukh entered the shop while it was raining. Both the complainant and Dr.Deshmukh were chit- chatting. At that time, suddenly three persons came there. One person was standing near the counter. He was having two revolvers S 2 appln345.11 in his hand and his face was covered. He was speaking in Hindi. It is further alleged that he pointed revolver towards the complainant. Two more persons out of them came inside the shop and one person was having leather bag in his hand and the third person was also having two revolvers in his hand. Their faces were also covered. All these persons were in the age group of 25 to 30. Two persons who entered the shop demanded money from Sanjay on the point of gun. Thereafter they themselves opened the drawer and took out cash lying therein. At that point of time the person standing outside fired one shot from his gun towards Dr.Deshmukh. The bullet passed through body of Dr.Deshmukh. Dr.Deshmukh got injured and approached nearby hospital. It is alleged that the intruders took away Rs.50,000/-. The prosecution witnesses claimed to have seen those accused including the injured. The complaint was lodged on 4.8.2005 at about 00.30 hours. That is why PSI, Sarkarwada registered crime vide No.210 of 2005 for the offences punishable under section 307, 394 r/w 34 of IPC and section 3/25 of the Arms Act and the investigation started thereafter. The investigation of the said crime was entrusted to Senior PI Saindani. This officer investigated the crime for the period from 4.8.2005 to 20.12.2005. The said officer thereafter submitted “A” final report before the Court as the accused could not be found. It is the prosecution case that in connection with the crime registered at Ambad police station vide No.290 of 2006 when the accused persons were being investigated, they admitted that they have also committed offence at Shriraj Wine Shop and on 3 appln345.11 certain admissions and revealations made by them the investigating officer was directed to reinvestigate the offence. Accordingly the permission was sought from the court and crime was reinvestigated. 4. The prosecution examined the complainant, the medical officer, P.W.2 - injured Dr.Deshmukh. 5. Learned APP submits that the indentification parade was carried out wherein the complainant claims to have identified some of the accused. During the trial it was revealed that the weapons allegedly used by the accused were not seized and produced before the court by the investigating officer. The investigating officer admitted before the trial Court that he is not aware what investigation was conducted prior to 14.8.2006 and stated that he had not seized any sonography report and X-ray plate in respect of injuries sufferred by Dr.Deshmukh from Krishna hospital. He did not record evidence of the hawker, who was selling groundnut in front of Shriraj Wines Shop. It has come on record that the accused persons were involved in other crime when they were interrogated. 6. The trial Court after recording the evidence and appreciating the facts observed that the evidence in respect of identification of the accused is not worth reliable. Though the complainant claimed that he identified all the four accused but in the complaint of Dr.Deshmukh there was mention in respect of three persons only. The trial Court observed that no serious efforts were made by the investigating officer for producing fire-arm which was seized from the Bhadrakali police station before the Court. Though police seized 4 appln345.11 cartidge from the spot but failed to prove that it was used by a particular fire-arm. The trial Court observed that there was no certificate produced or opinion placed on record in respect of cartidge being of particular fire-arm, therefore, it was difficult to prove that the prosecution established the case beyond reasonable doubt. 7. P.W.7 - Yeshwant Bhaurao Bawiskar, PSI attached to Ambad police station at the relevant time as PSI was examined. He deposed before the court that the crime was registered bearing No.290 of 2010 against the accused persons under section 392 of IPC and section 3/25 of the Arms Act. During the course of investigation the officer seized four live bullets and revolver which was sent to laboratory for chemical analysis. The covering letter and copy of C.A. report was placed on record which was objected to by the defence. The documents were allowed to be kept on record by the trial Court subject to decision on objection at the time of final hearing. 8. Considering the record and proceedings and the manner in which the investigation was conducted the trial Court reached proper conclusion that the State miserably failed to collect reliable evidence against the accused persons. The trial Court in strong words deprecated the manner in which the case was investigated by the investigating officer. 9. In the cases where in the investigation is not conducted properly and it is noticed that there were serious lapses in conducting the investigation, the higher officers shall look into such cases. In 5 appln345.11 Cases resulting in acquittal wherein the court passes remarks regarding faulty investigation shall also be taken up by the higher police officers and scrutinise reasons thereto. Strict vigilance by the higher officers would not only guide the investigating officers who are called upon to investigate serious criminal cases but would have far reaching impact in respect of assessment of cases where the courts after assessing evidence observes that the investigation was not conducted properly or there were serious lapses. This exercise assumes significance in the light of fact that in sizezable number of criminal cases orders of acquittal are passed due to serious infirmities in conducting investigation. 10. There is no merit in the application. Hence, it is dismissed. 11. We direct the registry to forward a copy of this order and the judgment of the trial Court to the Commissioner of Police, Nashik. (MRS.MRIDULA R BHATKAR,J.) (NARESH H PATIL,J.)