SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Bom) 985

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sarang V. Kotwal, J.
Mansaram s/o Damu Ahire - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 600 of 2012
Decided On : 23-08-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Satyavrat Joshi a/w. Sumant R. Deshpande a/w. Nilesh Mohite
For the Respondent: Smt. Veera Shinde, APP

The importance of corroborative evidence, consistency in witness statements, and proof beyond reasonable doubt in corruption cases.

Headnote:

Prevention of Corruption Act - Corruption - 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2)

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted for offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and accepting bribes. The prosecution's case was based on the complainant's allegations of bribery and subsequent trap laid by the Anti-Corruption Bureau.

Finding of the Court:

The court found discrepancies and contradictions in the prosecution's evidence, including timing inconsistencies, contradictory statements, and lack of corroboration. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant.

Issues: Discrepancies in prosecution evidence, lack of corroboration, contradictory statements, and motive for false implication.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of corroborative evidence, consistency in witness statements, and proof beyond reasonable doubt in corruption cases. The court also considered the motive for false implication in reaching its decision.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment and order of conviction were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Appellant has challenged the Judgment and order dated 03/05/2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge–2, Niphad, in Special Case No.01 of 2007. By the impugned Judgment and order, the Appellant was convicted for commission of offence punishable U/s.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘P. C. Act’) and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-and in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for two months. The Appellant was also convicted for commission of offence punishable U/s.13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of P.C. Act. He was sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-and in default of payment of fine to suffer R.I. for two months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case is that the complainant Dattu Gawali was having dispute with his brother’s family in respect of two adjoining lands in Gat No.231 belonging to himself and Gat No.230 belonging to his brother at Kolgaon, Taluka Niphad, District Nashik. On 11/05/2006, there was an incident wherein his brother’s family had manhandled, abused and beaten him. The complainant, in this case, Dattu Gawali had gone to Lasalgaon police station and lodged the complaint with the present Appellant who was Head Constable attached to Lasalgaon police station. It is his case that, on that day, he had demanded Rs.2000/- for taking action on his complaint and he had actually accepted it. It is further case of the complainant that, on 19/06/2006 when the complainant had gone to Lasalgaon police station, he was kept in lock-up for some time. The Appellant demanded Rs.1000/-for taking his side and not taking action against him. The complainant approached A.C.B., Nashik, gave his complaint, procedure for laying trap was completed and on 21/06/2006, in the evening, the trap was laid. The complainant and the pancha went to Lasalgaon police station followed by A.C.B. officers. The Appellant accepted two notes of Rs.500/-. He was caught. Post trap panchanama was recorded and the investigation was carried out. The appellant faced the trial before the Sessions Court at Nashik and at the conclusion of the trial, he was convicted and sentenced as mentioned earlier.

3. During trial, the prosecution examined 4 witnesses. PW-1 Dattu Gawali was the complainant, PW-2 Dhananjay Ahire was a pancha witness, PW-3 Dr. Nikhil Gupta was the sanctioning authority and PW-4 Shantaram Awasare, Dy. S.P. was the Investigating officer. The defence of the appellant was of denial. His further contention was that the complainant was under impression that, the Appellant was taking side of his opponents and, therefore, he was falsely implicated by the complainant. At the time of trap, there was no electricity supply and, therefore, everything related to testing of notes and clothes under the Ultraviolet lamp is a falsity. After considering the defence of the appellant and submissions, learned trial Judge believed the prosecution case, discrepancies in the depositions of the witnesses were brushed aside on the ground that the witnesses were deposing after a gap of almost 6 years and, therefore, they were not expected to depose regarding the minor details. It was also observed that the sanction was properly accorded. All the witnesses were believed. Even the motive for demand of money was believed. Therefore, learned Judge recorded his conclusion.

4. The prosecution case is disclosed by the complainant himself. He is examined as PW-1. In the initial part of his deposition, he has described his dispute with his brother’s family and about the incident which had taken place on 11/05/2006. He has deposed that, after he lodged his complaint with the appellant, he demanded Rs.2000/-for taking action on his complaint. He has further deposed that, he then paid the said amount to the appellant. According to PW-1, his nephews again threatened him and, therefore, he met the superior police officer at Niphad and gave a co

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top