Advocates Should Possess Up-To-Date Knowledge, Not Cite Any Decisions Which Are No Longer Good In Law: Bombay High Court

A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay S Waghwase while upholding a man's conviction for murdering his own daughter, observed that his advocate relied on an outdated judgment to challenge the testimony of a prosecution witness.

“In fact it was expected from an Advocate that he should possess up-to-date knowledge of law and should not cite any decision which is no longer a good law”, the court observed.

The man had appealed his conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, who found him guilty under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of his daughter by strangulation on the intervening night of July 26-27, 2017.

The advocate representing the appellant had relied on the Single Judge decision in Ram Singh v. State of Maharashtra (1999) wherein it was held that the Police Patil is a Police Officer and therefore, confession made before him is not admissible in evidence. Based on this case, he challenged the testimony of a Police Patil who testified that the appellant confessed to him.

However, the court pointed out that subsequently, a Full Bench (three-judge bench) of the Bombay HC in Rajeshwar s/o Hiraman Mohurle v. State of Maharashtra (2009) held that Police Patil appointed under the Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967 is not a “Police Officer” for the purpose of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

“The testimony of PW-4 Bharat has been attacked by the learned Advocate for the appellant taking help of the decision in Ram Singh v. State of Maharashtra and another, (supra), wherein it was held that the Police Patil is a Police Officer and therefore, confession made before him is not admissible in evidence…The Full Bench of this Court in Rajeshwar s/o Hiraman Mohurle (in jail) vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 (4) Mh.L.J. 483 has held that Police Patil appointed under the Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967 is not a “Police Officer” for the purpose of Section 25 of the Evidence Act”, the court elaborated.

The Full Bench had observed that there is no provision in the Village Police Act which requires the Police Patil to be treated as a Police Officer for all intent and purpose and therefore confession made before him would not attract the bar of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

Thus, the confession made before the Police Patil was admissible and not at all hit by any of the provisions of law, the court observed.

According to the prosecution, the appellant's daughter Deepali had a relationship with another local Manohar while being married to someone else. Manohar allegedly kidnapped her. When she was brought to the police station after 15 days, she insisted on marrying him, causing family disputes. Feeling defamed and planning to relocate, the appellant allegedly decided to eliminate Deepali, leading to her murder.

The appellant and his wife reported the incident to the Police Patil, leading to the filing of an FIR. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500.

In his appeal, he argued that critical facts had been presumed, and the illiteracy of both him and his wife should have been given due consideration. Additionally, he questioned the admissibility of the FIR, asserting that it constituted a confession made before the police, violating Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Acknowledging the inadmissibility of the confession made to the police officer under Section 25, the court clarified that information given by the accused at the time of FIR is admissible as evidence of conduct of the appellant as per Section 8 of the Evidence Act.

The court rejected the appellant's endeavours to implicate the Police Patil, observing that such claims appeared to be an afterthought defence.

After considering the entirety of the evidence, including witness testimonies, medical reports, and panchanamas, the court concluded that the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt and dismissed the appeal.

Advocate PB Patil represented the Appellant while APP VS Choudhari represented the State.

Case no. – Criminal Appeal No. 844 of 2018

Case Title – Vishwas S/o Pitambar Patil v. State of Maharashtra