1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2003 The State of Maharashtra ] ...Appellant Versus Bapu Pandu Mali, ] Age 35 years, ] R/o. Dodheshwar, Tal. Satana, ] Dist. Nashik ] ...Respondent. Mr. P.A. Pol, Public Prosecutor, for the Appellant Mr. Y.M. Choudhary, amicus curiae. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Bilal Nazki, J.):- This appeal has come before us in peculiar circumstances. While, in another appeal, certain orders are passed by the Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1155 of 2005, it was revealed that the respondent in this appeal is languishing in jail for 5 years, 2 although he had been acquitted of the offences by the learned Sessions Judge. After his acquittal in year 2003, the State filed an appeal against his acquittal, and the High Court issued a Warrant of Arrest under Section 390 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge, after executing the warrant of this Court, offered bail to the respondent, but he could not provide surety. Therefore, he languished in jail. 2. We understand that the offence in this case was committed in year 1999. The accused was arrested on 30th March, 1999. He could not get bail during the trial, and as a result, for more than 10 years now, he is in jail, although he has been acquitted by a Court of law 5 years before. 3. This is a sorry state of affairs in which not only the prosecuting agency but also the Courts are involved. This is a reflection on our own system, which needs to be corrected. A person, who is acquitted of the charges by a Court of law, should 3 not remain in jail even for a day after acquittal, unless the order of acquittal is reversed by an appellate Court. Even if the acquittal of the respondent were to be set aside by this Court today, even then, we cannot justify his detention after his acquittal by the Sessions Court till date. 4. We have perused Section 390 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which section only lays down a mechanism by which it is ensured that an acquitted person does not abscond while an appeal is filed against his acquittal. Therefore, we do not feel that there should be any impediment for the Courts to release the persons who are acquitted during the pendency of the appeals against acquittal. 5. After hearing the learned amicus curiae and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, we give the following directions:- That in case of a warrant under Section 390, the Sessions Judge, on production of the persons, shall immediately 4 offer him bail on conditions which are just and proper, and in appropriate cases, the Sessions Judge may also consider release of such persons on personal bond. However, if the learned Sessions Judges are of the view that the surety is not produced or surety is not sufficient, they would remand the persons to the prison. In that case, they should inform the High Court immediately that the person has been remanded to the custody because originally, the warrants are issued by the High Court. 6. We are told that such directions were given in year 2004 also, but the learned Sessions Judges have not been following these directions. Therefore, in case, in future, any Sessions Judge is found not to follow the directions, besides taking departmental action against such learned Sessions Judge, he shall also be liable for contempt of this Court. 7. Now, coming to the main case, the accused was tried for offences under Sections 302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. 5 He was acquitted of both the charges. The prosecution story was that he took away a minor girl, raped her and ultimately murdered her on 28th March, 1999. The parents of the girl tried to search the girl, but could not find her. They approached the police, and after 3 days, the body was found. The prosecution tried to establish the case on the basis of circumstantial evidence as far as murder was concerned. The case of rape could not be proved, because only part of the body, i.e., the upper torso of the deceased, was found, and it could not be at all established whether the deceased had been raped or not. 8. For the charge of murder, two circumstances were tried to be established by the prosecution. The first circumstance was that the accused was last seen with the deceased, and the second circumstance was that the recovery of the dead body was made at the disclosure of the accused. Both these circumstances have not been believed by the learned Sessions Judge. 6 9. We have perused the judgment, and we have heard the learned amicus curiae and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. We have also gone through the evidence. The circumstances in which the deceased was last seen were tried to be established on the basis of the testimony of P.Ws. 4 and 6. P.W. 6 did not have any knowledge of his own. Whatever he stated in the Court was merely a hearsay, and it was rightly not taken as admissible by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that P.W. 6’s testimony was hearsay cannot be interfered with. 10. Now, coming to P.W. 4’s testimony, the learned Sessions Judge did not believe him for three reasons: That the accused was not known to him. No Identification Parade was done, and he was not shown even the photograph of the deceased person. He was examined in the Court after three years of the incident, and he accepted, in cross-examination, that he did not remember each and every customer. P.W. 4 is running a 7 restaurant, and he had submitted that the accused along with a child had come to his restaurant immediately before the occurrence took place. 11. Since the conclusions drawn by the learned Sessions Judge are possible, in the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, no interference is called for. 12. The second circumstance leading to recovery of the dead body is also not believed by the learned Sessions Judge. The father of the girl accompanied the accused and the police for alleged recovery of the dead body, but in his statement, he said that after two to three days of occurrence, he was informed by the police that the body of Sunita, his daughter, was traced, and they told him that he would accompany them to Village Dodheshwar, where the body of the deceased had been found. In cross- examination, he stated that when they reached near the place where the body was found, the police was already there. This led 8 the learned Sessions Judge to come to the conclusion that the location of the body was known to the police even before the essential discovery was made by the accused. It is otherwise not possible that this body should have been found. It was in an open field, hidden in some bushes for two or three days, where half of the body had been eaten by animals. It was a decomposed body. It would have created a smell, and by that smell, people would have generally found the body. 13. Examining the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, we find that the possible view was that the accused was not involved in the crime. Therefore, in this appeal against acquittal, we do not think that we can intervene. 14. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed, and the respondent is set at liberty forthwith. However, because of the fault of the State, including the courts, an innocent person has remained in custody for a period of 10 years. Therefore, the State 9 should compensate him by paying a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh). 15. It is evident that the prisoner is a poor man, who could not give a surety. Therefore, when the compensation is paid by the State, it shall be deposited in a Fixed Deposit for 5 years in a bank in the village in which the respondent resides. He shall, however, be entitled to take interest of the amount every month. After 5 years, the entire money shall be given to him. BILAL NAZKI, J. A.R. JOSHI, J.