Mumbai: Thirty-one years after a custodial death in a theft case, the Bombay High Court has discharged Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) Siddappa Savli, who was the investigating officer in the case. Justice Milind Jadhav discharged Salvi observing that a departmental inquiry, which included testimony from eyewitnesses, had exonerated him.
The HC was hearing an appeal filed by Savli, through Advocate Niranjan Mundargi, challenging the order of the sessions court of October 25, 2002, rejecting his discharge plea on the ground that he was the IO in the theft case. Also, the sessions court said that four constables acted in his directions and brought Patil.
Savli was appointed on probation as PSI at Taloja Police Station on August 19, 1993, and assigned to undertake investigation as Investigating Officer (IO) into the gold theft case in which one Pandurang Dharma Patil was arrested as a suspect.
The HC noted there was no prima facie evidence or official record of Savli issuing instructions to constables to bring Patil. Patil was brought to the police station on September 28, 1993, by four constables (Accused Nos. 3 to 6), where he was reportedly subjected to severe assault, ultimately leading to his death by alleged suicide the next day.
While the sessions court discharged Police Inspector Vinayak Joshi, who was in charge of the Taloja police station, it denied relief to Savli. The High Court highlighted that there was no evidence to show Savli was aware of Patil’s detention or the use of third-degree treatment by the constables. Moreover, departmental inquiry findings corroborated Savli’s claims, showing he was neither informed about the suspects’ arrival nor their assault.
Witness testimonies, including that of Havaldar Prabhakar Patil, indicated that instructions to bring in suspects came orally from Joshi and Savli. However, the court found no material evidence of Savli’s active involvement. Another witness, Irfan Shaikh, stated Savli was not present during the detention.
The High Court emphasized that the sessions court failed to consider critical evidence from the departmental inquiry, which absolved Savli of any role. Justice Jadhav noted that denying him discharge, while exonerating Joshi, was inconsistent and unsustainable.
The court appreciated Savli’s counsel, Mundargi, for not challenging Joshi’s discharge to maintain judicial fairness. Concluding that no purpose would be served by further remanding the matter, the High Court quashed the 2002 order and allowed Savli’s discharge application.
Salvi has since retired. As he was not convicted, Savli continued on service. However it affected his promotion. Because of the pending plea, the State has not decided on his pension amount, which wil not be processed, Mundargi said.