State vs Radhakrishnan and others

Janarthanam, J.—The Sub-Inspector of Police, Railway Protection Force, Katpadi registered a case in Crime No. 17/80 for an alleged

offence under S. 3(1) of the Railway Properties (Unlawful Possession) Act (for short ""the Act"") and took up further investigation.

The subject matter of theft is Golkonda Brandy bottles belonging to the Railways. He happened to arrest Mohan (accused 1) and he is stated to

have given a voluntary confession statement to him implicating himself and others, namely, Radhakrishnan (accused 2), Rajason (accused 3) and

Chinnappan (accused 4) and one Gajendran (since deceased). The deceased Gajendran was also stated to have given a voluntary confession,

implicating himself and the rest of the accused in the crime. Accused 1, pursuant to the confession was said to have pointed out accused 3 and 4

and from the lands belonging to them, it is said, the stolen properties, namely, Golkonda Brandy bottles, which were stated to have been kept

concealed underneath, have been recovered and the recovery was stated to have been witnessed by independent witnesses. Accused 2 is likewise

said to have pointed out by accused 1, from whom a cash of Rs. 750/- representing the sale proceeds of some of the Brandy bottles belonging to

the railways had been recovered and the seizure was also effected by the preparation of contemporaneous Mahazar, evidenced by independent

witnesses.

These things apart, accused 2 to 4 were also stated to have given confessional statements to P.W. 1, to a personnel belonging to Railway

Protection Force. After completion of the investigation, a complaint had been filed, which was taken on file as C.C. No. 761 of 1991 on the file of

the Judicial Magistrate No. I. Vellore, North Arcot.

Learned Magistrate, on consideration of the materials placed before him, found accused 1 guilty of the offence under S. 3(1) of the Act,

convicted him thereunder and instead of straightway sentencing him to imprisonment, however, released him under S. 4(1) of the Probation of

Offenders Act on his executing a bond to keep the peace for a period of one year in a specified sum, as stated in the order. He, however, found

accused 2 to 4 not guilty of the offence with which they stood charged and acquitted them thereunder, giving rise to the present action.

The reason given for rendering the verdict of acquittal of accused 2 to 4, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be stated to be

perverse, calling for interference. There is no material worth the name to point out that the lands from which the properties were said to have been

recovered belonged to accused 3 and 4. Further, there was no material to point out that they were in conscious possession of those contraband

articles. It is not as if the recovery had been effected, pursuant to the confession they made, so as to impute their knowledge about the possession

of the contraband articles.

These things apart, even the confessional statements of accused 2 to 4 had been retracted. Practically, the material evidence available on record

consists of the confession statement of the accused. No doubt true it is that the personnel belonging to Railway Protection Force in the eye of law,

is not to be construed as a police officer. However, a confession statement made before P.W. 1 is certainly admissible. The confession statement

of accused 1, implicating accuses 2 to 4 in the occurrence, cannot be read as evidence as against accused 2 to 4. If at all the same may be taken

into consideration, as a lending assurance factor, if there are other evidence available on record, implicating them with the crime. The confession

statements of accused 2 to 4, in the sense of rendering assistance to accused 1 in the alleged commission of the theft of the properties belonging to

the railways, though admissible in evidence, like the confession statement of accused 1, yet, they cannot have any weight and credence, especially

when their confessional statements had been retracted and when the witnesses for the seizure turned wholesale hostile to the prosecution.

The court below considered these materials as grossly inadequate to fasten or mulct any criminal liability upon accused 2 to 4. Such a finding

cannot at all be assailed in the circumstances of the case.

The appeal, as such, deserves to be dismissed even at the admission stage and is accordingly dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.