Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1828 (BOM)

Sambhaji Achchutrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra

2014-08-14

REVATI MOHITE DERE

body2014
Judgment : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Respondents waive notice through their respective Counsel. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the petitioner on instructions states that he does not press for quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 24th July, 2014 passed below Exhibit 668 by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.180/2009. It appears that the present petitioner was examined as prosecution witness No.55 i.e. Exhibit 650. It appears that during the examination-in-chief of the present petitioner, certain questions were put to him with regard to the investigation carried out after 14th February, 2009, which the present petitioner declined to answer. Mr. Joshi, contended, that the petitioner had declined to answer the said questions, as they were incriminating in nature, and more particularly, as the present petitioner was facing a prosecution for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 218, 219, 220, 221, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. He submitted that as the present petitioner had refused to answer the said questions, he came to be declared hostile by the learned D.G.P in the said case. 4. There is no dispute about the fact, that the present petitioner is facing a prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 218, 219, 220, 221, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, for preparing incorrect records and for shielding the offenders in the present case. The learned Judge has rightly observed in its order passed below Exhibit 668, that the petitioner cannot be compelled to answer the questions, which are likely to be incriminating and that the evidence is limited only to the investigation which was carried out by him. It is also observed that the petitioner cannot be compelled to answer questions which will incriminate him. 5. The learned P.P. Mr. Shinde states that with regard to certain documents which were prepared by the present petitioner, prosecution has already examined the panch witnesses to prove the said documents. 6. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner is an accused in another case for shielding the offenders in the said case. Thus, the petitioner cannot be compelled to answer any questions which are incriminating in nature. Considering the same, there was no reason for the prosecution to declare him as a hostile witness. 7. 6. It cannot be disputed that the petitioner is an accused in another case for shielding the offenders in the said case. Thus, the petitioner cannot be compelled to answer any questions which are incriminating in nature. Considering the same, there was no reason for the prosecution to declare him as a hostile witness. 7. Accordingly, the order dated 24th July, 2014 declaring the petitioner hostile is quashed and set-aside. The learned D.G.P to question the petitioner only with regard to the investigation carried out by him. If the prosecution puts any question to the petitioner which is incriminating, he may refuse to answer the same and his refusal to answer the incriminating question would not render him liable to be declared as hostile. It is for the Trial Court to decide the same, in accordance with law, as to whether the question is incriminating or not. 8. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 9. Petition is allowed on the above terms. 10. In view of the above order, the Criminal Application seeking intervention in writ petition being Criminal Application No.349/2014 does not survive and is disposed of as such. 11. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.