Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal under Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 6th October 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No. 9 of 2006, acquitting the respondent Anil Ramchandra Dhumase, a Police Head 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 respondent, along with another constable, demanded a bribe of Rs. 50,000 from the complainant Ashok Tadakhe (PW-1) to not initiate chapter proceedings against him. The complainant had earlier filed a complaint against four persons for demanding ransom, and later was involved in a vehicular accident with one of them, leading to his arrest and subsequent bail. After his release, the respondent allegedly visited his shop and demanded money. A trap was laid, but the panch witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. The trial court acquitted the respondent, finding that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court's findings were not perverse and that the evidence did not establish the guilt of the respondent. The court noted that the complainant's testimony was inconsistent and lacked corroboration, and the panch witness did not support the prosecution. The appeal was dismissed and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Standard of Proof - In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court will not interfere unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable - The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 arises only after the demand and acceptance of bribe are proved - Held that the trial court's acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence and not perverse (Paras 1-9). B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Corroboration - The evidence of the complainant must be corroborated by independent witnesses or circumstances - In the present case, the panch witness turned hostile and the complainant's testimony was inconsistent - Held that the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 4-8). C) Evidence Act - Hostile Witness - Effect - When a prosecution witness turns hostile, his evidence cannot be used to corroborate the prosecution case - The court may still rely on part of his testimony if it is consistent with other evidence - Held that the hostile panch witness did not support the prosecution case (Para 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was perverse and liable to be set aside.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No. 9 of 2006 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- standard of proof in corruption cases
- demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- presumption under Section 20 of PC Act arises only after demand and acceptance are proved
- appreciation of evidence in trap cases
