Back
2017 Supreme(Guj) 896
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R.P. Dholaria, J.
The State of Gujarat - Appellant
Vs.
Natvarlal Ranchhodbhai Patel - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 2007
Decided On : 02-05-2017
For the Appellant : K.L. Pandya.
For the Respondent: Kartik V. Pandya.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 r/w section 114 – Abetment of suicide – Mental torture and harassment – Seeking quashing of the F.I.R – Respondent No. 2 herein is the original first informant – She happens to be wife of deceased – Deceased committed suicide for which F.I.R ultimately came to be lodged – It is case of first informant that her husband had disputes with trustees of a Charitable Trust – Applicant herein was also one of the trustees – According to first informant her husband committed suicide on account of mental torture and harassment at hands of accused persons – Held, learned APP placed strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 – Through decision relied upon by learned APP in case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra (supra) – Facts of said case were altogether different. Apart from suicide note, which was left behind by deceased, various statements were recorded by police during investigation of different persons, showing that on account of business transactions with accused, deceased was put under tremendous pressure to do something which he was, perhaps, not willing to do – Having regard to the materials on record, Supreme Court took view that conduct of appellant and his accomplices was such that deceased was left with no other option except to put an end to his life – In my view, decision of the Supreme Court in case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra (supra) is distinguishable and would not help prosecution – Application Allowed.(Paras 9, 10 and 12)
R.P. Dholaria, J.
1. This is an appeal preferred by the State of Gujarat under Section 378 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 18/11/2006 recorded by the learned Special Judge, Second Fast Track Court, Valsad in Special Corruption Case No. (New):-55 of 2002 (Old No. 2 of 2002) whereby the learned Trial Judge acquitted the respondent-accused, of the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent accused was working as Surveyor with Mines and Mineral Department, Valsad and the complainant was doing business of selling sand. When the complainant met the accused to get lease permit on 17/09/2001, the respondent-accused demanded bribe of Rs. 1,300/- from the complainant and at that time, the complainant gave Rs. 300./- and remaining Rs. 1,000/- were agreed to be paid on 16/10/2001. As the complainant was not willing to pay such bribe, he approached the ACB, Valsad and lodged the complaint. Accordingly, trap was arranged and during the course of trap, the respondent-accused was caught red handed along with the tainted currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- and thereby offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the respondent-accused.
3. Necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, the respondent was arrested and, ultimately, charge-sheet was filed and submitted the same before the learned Special Judge, Second Fast Track Court, Valsad where the case was registered as Special Corruption Case No. 55 of 2002. The trial was initiated against the respondent.
4. To prove the case against the present respondent-accused, the prosecution has examined about four witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence.
5. At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondent of all the charges leveled against him by the impugned judgment and order.
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the trial Court, the appellant-State has preferred the present appeal.
7. This Court has heard Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP for the appellant-State and Mr. Kartik Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent-accused.
8. Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP has argued that the learned Special Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence and the learned Special Judge ought to have held that the evidence of the shadow panch is sufficient to establish the demand. It is contended by learned APP that the judgment and order of the trial Court is against the provisions of law as the trial Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself, it is established that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of alleged charges against the present respondent. Learned APP has taken this court through the oral as well as entire documentary evidence. It is further contended by learned APP that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is based on inferences not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption not permitted by law. It is also contended by him that the learned Judge has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence and thereby committed error by acquitting the respondent for the alleged offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which requires to be reversed as such and the respondent accused is required to be convicted.
9. On the contrary, Mr. Kartik Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent-accused supported the impugned judgment of acquittal and has
