HC acquits police officer of custodial death in 1993 | Mumbai news

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court last week suspended a police sub-inspector accused of involvement in a 1993 custodial death case for lack of evidence. The officer had been charged in connection with the death of a suspect who allegedly received tertiary treatment while in custody at Taloja police station. The court observed that the trial court failed to establish a valid prima facie case against the police officer and noted that there were significant inconsistencies in the prosecution’s arguments.

The case arose from a theft investigation into stolen gold jewelery in Panvel on September 19, 1993. Police identified Pandurang Dharma Patil, who was detained at Taloja police station along with others, as the suspect. It was reported that on the night of September 28, 1993, Patil was attacked by police officers and later found dead after allegedly committing suicide. The investigating officer, who was on probation at the time, was accused of directing the detention and interrogation of Patil.

Lawyer Niranjan Mundargi, representing the officer, argued that there was no evidence linking his client to the alleged tertiary treatment or subsequent death. He highlighted that there was no record in the station diary of Patil’s detention or the officer’s participation in his interrogation. Additionally, the officer was not informed about Patil’s detention or the officers’ actions. The defense also cited a department investigation report that cleared the officer of any wrongdoing, stating that the officers acted without his knowledge.

The state, represented by APP Manisha Tidke, argued that as the investigating officer, he bore responsibility for the actions of his subordinates. However, the prosecution failed to present evidence of the police officer’s clear involvement in the events leading to Patil’s death.

Justice Milind N. Jadhav, who presided over the case, criticized the trial court for its vague reasoning in rejecting the officer’s earlier discharge application. The court noted that there was no record showing the officer’s role in the detention or interrogation of Patil, and emphasized that criminal liability could not be established without clear evidence. The ruling also emphasized that the ministry’s investigation supported the defense’s claim, finding no evidence of the police officer’s knowledge of or involvement in the alleged violence in custody.

The court concluded that the police officer deserved the same treatment as the police station officer in charge, who had previously been dismissed on similar grounds. The court overturned the decision of the first instance court and accepted the officer’s application for release, ending a case that had been going on for more than thirty years.