2011 Supreme(Bom) 138
In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
S.S. SHINDE
Dr. Smt. Usha
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 375 OF 1999
Decided on : 04-02-2011
For the Appellant :S.P. Brahme, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mrs. Yogita M. Kshirsagar (Thorat), A.P.P.
Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2)-Conviction under-Validity of-Alleged offence of demand of bribe-Amount demanded, not accepted directly in hand by accused-Corroboration of evidence of complainant assumes importance-If evidence of complainant not fully corroborated-Appellant-accused cannot be held guilty for offences charged against her.-In Court opinion the very case of the prosecution is that for issuance of injury certificate lady doctor appellant demanded Rs. 400/- from the complainant.
Admittedly the alleged bribe amount of Rs. 400/- was not accepted by appellant accused in her hand. Even according to the prosecution, the said amount was asked to be kept in drawer of the table of the appellant accused. Therefore, in such case where the amount is not accepted directly in hand by the accused the corroboration to the evidence of complainant assumes importance. Unless there is full corroboration to the evidence of PW 1 complainant, it would not be safe to hold the appellant-accused guilty for the offences charge against her.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2)-Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3-Corruption changes-Appreciation of evidence-Prosecution version fall of contradictions, omissions, improvements and looks from sufficient convincing evidence-Room for doubt exists-Benefits of doubt go to accused.-As already stated the prosecution story is full of contradictions omissions, improvements and lacks from sufficient convicting evidence which would prove the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. It is settled position of law that if there is room for doubt the benefits should go to the accused.
1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge (A.C.). Aurangabad in Special Case No.20 of 1997, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 13(1) (d) r.w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced her to suffer S.I. for one year and pay fine of Rs.3000/-. The appellant is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced her to suffer S.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- in default S.I. for two months. The trial court has ordered that the substantive sentence shall run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is as under:-
The appellant accused Dr. Smt. Usha Sarwade on 6.2.1996 was working as “Casualty Medical Officer” in Government Medical College and Hospital Aurangabad and so she was a public servant. The complainant Deelip Shelar, r/o Witkheda alongwith his parents on 3.2.1996 was assaulted by one Parbhat Dapke and his children. After assault, he lodged a complaint in Deogaon Rangari police station. The police referred him and his father to the Medical Officer for treatment in Government College and Hospital Aurangabad and for injury certificate. He, as well as his father were admitted in the said Hospital commonly known as “Ghati Hospital”, Aurangabad. The accused being C.M.O. was dealing with the case of the complainant and his father. The complainant had requested her to keep his father for two days more in Ghati Hospital Aurangabad but his request has not considered by the appellant-accused and his father was discharged from the hospital.
It is the contention of the prosecution that when the complainant Deelip Shelar had been to the accused for his injury certificate as well as the injury certificate of his father, the accused demanded Rs.400/- from him by way of bribe. It is the allegation of the prosecution that the accused refused to issue injury certificate unless the amount of bribe was paid by the complainant Deelip Shelar. She was also told him that on 6.2.1996 up to 8.00 p.m. she would be at her chamber for her official work and he may collect the injury certificate from her in the evening of the same day.
The complainant Deelip Shelar was not inclined to give bribe to the accused. Therefore, he came to the office of A.C.B. Aurangabad and met to Dy. Superintendent of Police Shri Kulkarni. His complaint was reduced into writing in the office of A.C.B. Aurangabad. The Investigating Officer Shri. Kulkarni called two panchas namely Shri Munge and Shir Lad. They gave consent to act as panchas in the trap. They also read the complaint of Shri Deelip Shelar. Thereafter, demonstration of use of anthracene powder and Ultra violate lamp was shown to the complainant and both panchas. Then as per the instructions of Dy. S.P. Shri Kulkarni the complainant Deelip Shelar produced four currency notes of Rs.100/- each. The anthracene powder was applied to the said notes and the same were kept in the left pocket of shirt of the complainant. Shri Kulkarni instructed to complainant not to touch the said notes unless the money was demanded by the accused. The panch Shri Munge was also instructed to remain with the complainant at the time of trap and to listen the conversation between the complainant and the accused. Then the pretrap panchnama was prepared in the office of A.C.B. Aurangabad in which the number of marked currency notes were mentioned and the bottle of anthracene powder was sealed and kept in cupboard. Shri Kulkarni gave directions to another panch Shri Lad and his other staff regarding movements at the time of trap. In this way the trap was arranged against the accused.
Shri Kulkarni, both panchas and his staff at about 7.00 p.m. came to Panchakki by police jeep. From there, the complainant Shri Deelip Shelar and panch witness Shri Munge proceeded to Ghati, Aurangabad. Thereafter, they met the accused at her chamber in C.M.O. Room in