Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and order dated 31st March 2011 passed by the learned Special Judge (Under P.C. Act), Pune in Special Case No.3 of 2006, acquitting the respondent Kailas Pandurang Pawar, a police constable, of offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution case was that the informant Ismail Abdul Sayyad (PW-2) had illicit relations with Smt. Nanda Darawade, who used to threaten him through the respondent. On 30th July 2004, a quarrel ensued between the informant and Smt. Nanda, leading to the informant being taken to Mundhwa Police Chowky where the respondent allegedly detained him and demanded Rs.400/- as illegal gratification for not initiating further action. The informant lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau on 6th August 2004, and a trap was laid on 7th August 2004. The trial court acquitted the respondent, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court, in the appeal under Section 378(1) Cr.P.C., held that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is limited. The court noted that the panch witness (PW-1) and the complainant (PW-2) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The complainant's testimony was inconsistent and lacked corroboration. The court found that the trial court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Section 378(1) Cr.P.C. - Scope of Interference - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal will not interfere unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 arises only after the prosecution proves demand and acceptance of bribe. (Paras 1-2) B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Proof - The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demanded and accepted illegal gratification. In the present case, the trap witnesses turned hostile and the complainant's testimony was inconsistent. The trial court's acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence and not perverse. (Paras 3-8) C) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 3 - Hostile Witness - Testimony of hostile witness cannot be relied upon without corroboration. The panch witness (PW-1) and complainant (PW-2) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Their evidence was insufficient to prove demand or acceptance. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was perverse or against the weight of evidence, and whether the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondent. The court found no perversity in the trial court's findings and held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
- burden of proof on prosecution
- demand and acceptance of bribe
- standard of proof in criminal cases
