The Bombay High Court has criticized the police and judges for their careless handling of evidence, leading to the wrongful conviction of Anand Sakpal, a postmaster. Justice SM Modak expressed disappointment on March 14 over the trial court and appellate court’s oversight of crucial evidence.
“This shows a blatant disregard for the responsibilities of the stakeholders. The Investigating Officer has retired, but I find it necessary to report this careless approach to the Joint Director of the Maharashtra Judicial Academy (MJA). Judges receive training there, and this issue should be brought to their attention,” said Justice Modak while acquitting Sakpal in a case of criminal breach of trust.
Justice Modak has instructed the Joint Director of the MJA to address this at the training level with judges. The Joint Director is also required to inform the High Court about the steps taken to resolve this issue.
Anand Sakpal was accused of misappropriating ₹28,834 between August 20, 2006, and February 28, 2007. His superior discovered discrepancies in the registers during an inspection and filed a complaint with the police after verifying the amounts with account holders.
Sakpal was charged under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant) and 468 (forgery) of the Indian Penal Code. The Judicial Magistrate at Khalapur in Raigad district acquitted him of forgery but convicted him for criminal breach of trust, sentencing him to three years of rigorous imprisonment. The Sessions Judge at Panvel in Raigad upheld this conviction, leading Sakpal to file a revision application with the High Court.
Justice Modak noted that the police did not seize the relevant registers from 2006-2007, which were critical to the case. Instead, they seized registers from August 2004 to February 2005, which were not even presented in the trial court. Both the magistrate and the sessions judge failed to notice these gaps in the prosecution’s evidence.
“Without inspecting the relevant registers, it was impossible to conclude misappropriation. There were clear gaps in the prosecution’s evidence. Even the witnesses’ oral testimonies could not be substantiated without the documentary evidence,” concluded the High Court.
As a result, the High Court acquitted Sakpal and ordered his immediate release from prison.
Case title: Anand Sakpal v. State of Maharashtra
