Mumbai: Putting an end to a 17 years old litigation, the Bombay High Court last week upheld the acquittal of a Pune police officer, who was booked for using 'third-degree' interrogation on an informer, who later on died.
A bench of Justice Kalpathi Sriram acquitted Chiraguddin Tamboli (50), who was acquitted by a trial court in 2003. The bench noted that the deceased was a police informer and that there was no need for the cops to assault and kill him.
The bench was seized with the appeal filed by the Maharashtra government, which challenged the orders of the trial court. According to the prosecution, the accused cop picked up the deceased from his house in order to know the whereabouts of a criminal.
It is claimed that Tamboli brutally assaulted the deceased and later on took him to a local hospital, wherein, the deceased was referred to another hospital in Pune.
However, as per the police, the accused cops, dropped the deceased to his house and, later on, when he complained of chest pain, his family rushed him to a nearby hospital, where he died.
The prosecution, accordingly, claimed that Tamboli assaulted the deceased informer and invoked the charges that penalise police officers resorting to third-degree interrogations to obtain information from a person.
Having heard the contentions, the bench of Justice Sriram noted that there was no direct evidence to prove that Tamboli resorted to third-degree and that the case rested upon circumstantial evidence alone.
“The deceased did not tell anyone that he was assaulted by anybody. He had severe heart attack and, a night before he died, he had consumed alcohol and had also skipped his meal,” Justice Sriram noted.
The court further said that third-degree amounts when information obtained, would help detect of an offence or misconduct.
“No such information is obtained in this case. Moreover, the deceased was a police informant and was working with the cops as an informant of all criminals.
If the deceased was working as an informant with the squad, why should the accused assault him or cause grievous hurt. This has not been answered anywhere,” Justice Sriram said, while dismissing the state's appeal.
