Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal against the acquittal of Ramesh Tukaram Wagh, a Police Head Constable, in Special Case (PCA) No.4/2012 by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-3, Jalna on 04.03.2015. The respondent was acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case arose from a complaint by Gunappa Babuappa Barshe, an agriculturist, who alleged that the accused demanded Rs.20,000/- to avoid arresting him and his relatives in a non-cognizable offence. The complainant lodged a complaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau on 12.10.2011, and a trap was laid on 13.10.2011. The trap allegedly resulted in the recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the trap witness (panch witness No.1) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The complainant's testimony was inconsistent and lacked corroboration. The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act could not be raised because the demand itself was not proved. The court also noted that the recovery of money alone, without proof of demand and acceptance, is insufficient to convict. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The trap witness (panch witness No.1) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The complainant's testimony was inconsistent and uncorroborated. The court held that the acquittal by the trial court was proper and the appeal was dismissed. (Paras 1-20) B) Evidence Law - Hostile Witness - Effect of - Section 154 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - When a trap witness turns hostile and does not support the prosecution case, the prosecution must rely on other independent evidence to prove its case. In the absence of corroboration, the testimony of the complainant alone is insufficient to convict the accused. (Paras 12-18) C) Criminal Law - Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act - When Demand Not Proved - Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act that the accused accepted the gratification as a motive or reward can only be raised if the prosecution first proves the demand and acceptance. Since the demand itself was not proved, the presumption was not attracted. (Paras 15-19)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant for showing favour in a criminal case.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent.
Law Points
- Acquittal upheld
- demand and acceptance of bribe not proved
- trap witness unreliable
- no corroboration
- benefit of doubt
- presumption under Section 20 of PC Act not attracted
