R.P.F. LOCO, BHUSAWAL, DIST. JALGAON, FOR CENTRAL RAILWAYversusSUDHAKAR@SUDAM HARI TAYDE AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:45830


                                                                      ALP-25-2021
                                                  -1-

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      APPLN. FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY PVT. PARTY NO.25 OF 2021

                        R.P.F. Loco, Bhusawal,
                        Dist. Jalgaon,
                        For Central Railway                  .. Applicant

                              Versus

                 1.     Sudhakar @ Sudam Hari Tayde
                        Age: 50 years,
                        R/o. 40, Bunglow, Near Buddha
                        Wihar, Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal,
                        District Jalgaon.

                 2.     Dilip Onkardas Bairagi (Pardeshi)
                        Age: 42 years,
                        R/o. 40, Bunglow, Near Buddha
                        Wihar, Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal,
                        District Jalgaon.

                 3.     Kashinath @ Kashya @ Jadugar
                        Bhivsan Jadhav, Age: 54 years,
                        R/o. Mata Yashoda Nagar,
                        Behind Buddha Wihar, Bhusawal,
                        Tq. Bhusawal, District Jalgaon.

                 4.     Rajendra Sing Bist,
                        Age: 59 years,
                        R/o. Railway Awas No.TYFD/2/D,
                        Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal,
                        Dist. Jalgaon.

                 5.     Ratiram Bhaniram Kushwah,
                        Age: 50 years,
                                                           ALP-25-2021
                                  -2-

      R/o. Saraswati Nagar,
      Near Jalasa Baba Darga
      Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal,
      District Jalgaon.

6.    Gajraj Sing Vishnu Sing,
      Age: 53 years,
      R/o. Railway Quarter
      No.RBI-740/A+B
      Chandmari Chawl, Bhusawal,
      Tq. Bhusawal, District Jalgaon.

7.    Sachin Yashwant Sonavane
      Age: 40 years,
      R/o.40, Bunglow, Near Buddha
      Wihar, Bhusawal, Tq. Bhusawal,
      District Jalgaon.                           .. Respondents

                                  …
Mr. Rahul B. Bagul, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Swapnil S. Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4, 5, and 6.
Mr. Navin Shah, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 7.
                                   ...

                               CORAM :      ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                               Reserved on : 30.09.2026
                               Pronounced on : 01.10.2026

ORDER :-


1.    Dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 29.09.2020

passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Rly.), Bhusawal,

acquitting accused Nos.1 and 3 to 7 and discharging accused No.2,

the original complainant has preferred the present application seeking
                                                              ALP-25-2021
                                 -3-

leave to file an appeal.


2.    Learned Counsel for the applicant would point out that

complaint is Railway Police Force Loco, Bhusawal and has both

movable as well as immovable properties. That, informant noticed

theft of movable railway property and, therefore, inquiry was

conducted and, thereafter, complaint was lodged. That, after

gathering sufficient evidence, seven accused were duly charge-

sheeted. He pointed out that, as accused No.2 was not traceable, the

trial against him was separated, while the remaining accused were

duly tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Railway

Court,   Bhusawal.    He   pointed     out   that   before   trial   Court,

complainant’s case was rested on testimony of as many as 12

witnesses and reliance was also placed on documentary evidence.

That, there was overwhelming evidence in support of the charge and

accusations. However, learned trial Court acquitted accused Nos.1

and 3 to 7 and discharged accused No.2 by invoking Section 245

Criminal Procedure Code. That, said acquittal is without assigning

sound reasons.


3.    Learned Counsel for the applicant took this Court through the

provisions of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966

[for short “R.P.U.P. Act”], more particularly Sections 8 and 9 of the
                                                              ALP-25-2021
                                   -4-

said Act. According to him, the above provisions empower the

authorized officer to record a confessional statement. There were

confessional statements of the accused, however, the learned trial

Court discarded the said evidence. He pointed out that even the

CDR/SDR, demonstrating contact between the accused inter se as

well as possession of the goods by the accused, was not correctly

comprehended and appreciated. According to him, the complainant

has a good case on merits and, therefore, he urges for leave to file

appeal.


4.    Per contra, both the learned Counsel representing each of the

accused justify the judgment and order of acquittal. The common

point advanced by them is that firstly there was no cogent, reliable or

direct evidence about accused committing theft and secondly, there to

be inadmissible evidence in the form of confessional statements. They

seek reliance on the following judgments :-

     1)   Nikhil Chandra Mondal vs. State of West Bengal , (2023)
          INSC 198 : (2023) AIR (SC) 1323;


     2)   The State of Maharashtra vs. Nizamuddin Kutubuddin
          Ansari, [Criminal Appeal No.395 of 1998 decided by this
          Court on 20.08.2015]


     3)   Union of India, through Railway Protection Force, District
          Akola vs. Mohomad Harun s/o Mainudkhan, [2018 ALL
                                                             ALP-25-2021
                                     -5-

          MR (Cri.) 2120];


     4)   Union of India Through RPF Inspector, Railway Protection
          Force, Akola vs. Imadkhan Afrozkhan and others,
          [Criminal Application [APPA] No.91 of 2022 decided by
          this Court Bench at Nagpur on 18.04.2026].


5.    After hearing above respective submissions and on going

through the papers, it appears that, on behalf of complainant, one

Gawai lodged complaint regarding theft of railway property i.e.

copper wire. Said complaint was in the backdrop of inquiry conducted

by PW10 and PW12. Charge was invoked under Section 3 of the

R.P.U.P. Act, which reads as under :-


          3. Penalty for theft, dishonest misappropriation or
          unlawful possession of railway property.—Whoever
          commits theft, or dishonestly misappropriates or is
          found, or is proved to have been, in possession of any
          railway property reasonably suspected of having been
          stolen or unlawfully obtained shall, unless he proves
          that the railway property came into his possession
          lawfully, be punishable—

          (a) for the first offence, with imprisonment for a term
          which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with
          both and in the absence of special and adequate reasons
          to be mentioned in the judgment of the court, such
          imprisonment shall not be less than one year and such
          fine shall not be less than one thousand rupees;
                                                            ALP-25-2021
                                  -6-

         (b) for the second or a subsequent offence, with
         imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years
         and also with fine and in the absence of special and
         adequate reasons to be mentioned in the judgment of
         the court, such imprisonment shall not be less than two
         years and such fine shall not be less than two thousand
         rupees.”

6.    As usual, the evidence of the complainant and the authorities

who conducted the inquiry, being crucial, is dealt with at the outset.

Informant Gawai has deposed in the capacity of CW3 at Exhibit-84. In

his testimony, he seems to have reiterated the prosecution case

regarding noticing five bags containing pieces of copper wire lying

behind the compound wall of POH. He claims to have reported it to

the higher authorities and thereafter, watch was said to be kept over

the goods. According to him, secret information was received that one

Kashya was behind the theft and he had committed the offence of

theft by conniving and conspiring with some of the railway staff. He

seems to be arraigned as accused No.3. It is noticed that the reason

for the ill-treatment of accused No.3 was that he had earlier also

indulged in theft of railway property, and it is claimed that

information had been received that the said accused was likely to

commit theft of the goods moved and kept behind the compound.

However, while facing cross-examination, he seems to have admitted
                                                           ALP-25-2021
                                   -7-

that he has no details about accused No.3 and was also not in a

position to identify accused No.3. Even his testimony shows that mere

suspicion was raised that accused No.3 might commit theft.

Therefore, it is doubtful whether the actual act of theft was

committed at all. When such is the quality of the evidence of the

informant himself, at whose instance the complaint was registered,

serious doubt arises regarding the authenticity of the information

about the involvement of accused No.3 and some of the other

accused, including the railway staff. Apparently, the very act of theft

was not shown to be committed and goods lying behind the

compound wall are appear to be directly seized and crime came to be

registered.


7.    The fundamental ground raised by learned Counsel for the

applicant is that there were confessional statements recorded by

inquiry officer. However, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for

the respective respondents, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class

appears to have relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of

State of Maharashtra v. Nizamuddin Kutubuddin Ansari [Criminal

Appeal No. 395 of 1998, decided on 20.08.2015] , while rejecting the

prosecution case and refusing to act upon the confessional statements

recorded by the Inquiry Officer.
                                                           ALP-25-2021
                                  -8-


8.    Similarly, based on the confessional statements of the accused

taken in custody, remaining accused appear to have been implicated.

Therefore, conviction solely on the basis of confessional statements

cannot, by any means, be recorded. The learned Counsel for the

respondents/original accused have relied on the judgments in the

case of Nikhil Chandra Monda (supra) wherein it has been held that

an extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence needing

independent corroboration. Further, it is held that an acquittal is not

disturbed unless it is perverse or impossible. Again, in Union of India

vs. Imadkhan Afrozkhan (supra), it has been held that an RPF

confession cannot be relied, if the panchas are not examined and

Rules 14 and 15 of the Manual of Railway Laws are not complied

with. Similarly, in Union of India vs. Mohomad Harun s/o

Maimudkhan (supra), it has been held that an RPF confession is

admissible, but cannot be relied, unless clauses 14 and 14(1) is

followed. Lastly, in State of Maharashtra vs. Nizamuddin (supra), it

has been held that an RPF confession must be proved voluntarily. It

cannot be sole basis of conviction.


.     Here, procedure as contemplated does not seem to have been

followed.
                                                           ALP-25-2021
                                    -9-

9.    Lastly, in the light of above discussion and taking into

consideration the above judgments, and no good ground made out on

merits so as to accord leave, the same is refused. Hence, the following

order is passed :-

                                  ORDER


             .       Application is rejected.



                                            [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]



scm