Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Jivandhar S/o Govindrao Katke, was convicted by the Special Judge (A.C.), Aurangabad in Special Case No. 6/1994 for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 200 for the first offence, and two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500 for the second. The appellant was a police constable (P.H.C. B.No. 944) at Police Station Kannad. The prosecution case was that on 08/03/1994, the complainant Deepak Lalwani (PW1) slapped a drunken person who abused his sister at his hotel 'Milan Khanawal'. The appellant allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 500 to avoid registering a case against the complainant. A trap was laid on 15/03/1994, and tainted currency was allegedly recovered from the appellant. The co-accused Sakhahari Walmik Bhople was acquitted. The appellant appealed against the conviction. The High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of the trap witness (PW2) and the shadow witness (PW3). PW2 was found to be an interested witness as he was a friend of the complainant and had prior enmity with the appellant. PW3 did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. The court noted that the demand and acceptance of bribe were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The recovery of tainted currency alone, without proof of demand, was insufficient for conviction. The court also observed that the acquittal of the co-accused weakened the prosecution case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Conviction set aside as prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt - The trap witness (PW2) was not independent and his testimony was unreliable; the shadow witness (PW3) did not support the prosecution; and the recovery of tainted currency alone was insufficient to establish guilt - Held that the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt (Paras 1-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable based on the evidence of a trap witness and recovery of tainted currency.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Trap witness must be independent and reliable
- Acquittal of co-accused weakens prosecution case
- Mere recovery of tainted currency not sufficient for conviction
