Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat filed an appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 15-02-2008 passed by the learned Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Sabarkantha in Special (ACB) Case No. 2 of 2001. The respondent, Rajeshkumar @ Rajubhai Gaurishankar Upadhyay, was a Clerk in the office of the Deputy Collector, Modasa, and was charged with offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(1)(2)(3) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The complainant, Babusinh Virsinh Makwana, had applied for a gun licence and alleged that the accused demanded a bribe of Rs. 500/- to process the application. A trap was laid on 06-01-2001, and the accused was caught accepting the bribe money. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution evidence unreliable. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the complainant turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The panch witnesses also did not fully support the trap proceedings. The court held that the demand and acceptance of bribe were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act could not be invoked as the foundational facts were not established. The High Court concluded that the trial court's findings were not perverse and dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Section 378 CrPC - Scope of Interference - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal can interfere only if the findings of the trial court are perverse or unreasonable, and not merely because a different view is possible. The presumption of innocence of the accused is strengthened by acquittal. (Paras 1, 3-5) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Proof - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act arises only after the foundational facts of demand and acceptance are established. In the absence of credible evidence, the accused is entitled to acquittal. (Paras 2, 6-10) C) Evidence Act - Hostile Witness - Effect - The testimony of a hostile witness cannot be discarded entirely but can be relied upon to the extent it supports the prosecution case. However, if the witness resiles from the earlier version without any corroboration, the prosecution case becomes weak. (Paras 7-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is perverse and requires interference by this Court in an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act arises only after demand and acceptance are proved
- Standard of proof in criminal cases is beyond reasonable doubt
- Acquittal can be reversed only if findings are perverse or unreasonable
