State appealed against acquittal of police Sub-Inspector accused of corruption. High Court applied principle that acquittal stands if two views are possible and trial court's view is reasonably possible, dismissing the appeal with benefit of doubt to accused.
Criminal appeal dismissed; conviction not ordered; acquittal confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
AJN
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4 OF 1996
State of Maharashtra ) ... Appellant (Orig. Complainant)
Versus
Shankar Krishna Parve, ) aged 67 yrs. Occ. Govt. Service, ) residing at Nehru Nagar, Kurla, ) Mumbai. ) ... Respondent
Ms. M.M. Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the appellant.
Mr. Ganesh Gole for the respondent.
CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J. DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT RESERVED : 8TH AUGUST, 2007.
DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 22ND AUGUST, 2007.
JUDGEMENT: -
judgment and order dated 31/7/1995 & 1/8/1995 delivered by the
Special Judge, Greater Bombay in Special Case No.34 of 1992
AJN
2
whereby the respondent-accused (for convenience, “the accused”) was acquitted of the offences under section 7, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the said Act”).
The accused was serving as Sub-Inspector of Police in Greater Bombay Police Force. He was serving as Police SubInspector at Trombay Police Station from February 1991 to 25/4/1992. Thus, he was a public servant within the meaning of section 2(c) of the said Act. PW-1 Mukund is the complainant in the case. He used to live at Kamawadi (Hirabag) hutment, Panjarpol, Din Quarry Road, dChembur, Bombay – 400 088. His hut was within the jurisdiction of Trombay Police Station. The open place admeasuring about 10' x 10' was about 50 meters away from his hut. His family comprising his father, mother, brother and sister live there along with him. He, therefore, found the said accommodation to be insufficient. He covered the open space near his hut with gunny bags so that his family could use that portion. The erection of the small hut on the said open space was
AJN
3
completed on 4/4/1992.
passing on his motor cycle on Dinquari Road from near Dr. Parkhe Dispensary, PW-1 Mukund and his friends stopped him and questioned him about the demolition of the hut. PW-1 Mukund and his friends assaulted him and ran away. On the same day at about 7.30 p.m., they went to the hut of said Vijaykumar and apologized for the assault. PW-1 Mukund and his friends were afraid that said Vijaykumar might take revenge and assault them. Therefore, PW-1 Mukund and two of his friends Vikas Sable and Dilip Shirsat went to Solapur on the same night.
4
AJN
5
AJN
with the bail order and handed it over to the accused. The accused did not release PW-1 Mukund and his friends. He demanded Rs.600/- as bribe from PW-5 Prakash Sonawane. Dilip Shirsat then called PW-5 Prakash Sonawane near the lockup and questioned him as to what was the hitch for their release. PW-5 Prakash Sonawane told him that the accused had demanded Rs.600/- for their release and had threatened that in case the money was not paid, he would arrest PW-1 Mukund and his friends in another case.
AJN
6
therefore, he went to Trombay Police Station. He met the accused at about 6.30 p.m. and told him that he could not arrange for the money. The accused was annoyed and warned him to bring the money on the next day between 8.00 p.m. and 9.00 p.m. PW-1 Mukund then left the Trombay Police Station.
AJN
7
PW-1 Mukund. Thereafter, the constable left the place. PI Mahabadi instructed PW-1 Mukund to contact the accused and handover the marked currency notes only on demand as a bribe. Panch witness PW-3 Gholap was accompanying him. PW-1 Mukund was instructed to introduce panch witness PW-3 Gholap to the accused so that the panch witness would be able to remain present and hear the conversation. PW-1 Mukund was instructed to give a signal by folding his right hand sleeve of his shirt with his left hand after the accused accepted the amount of bribe. The members of the raiding party decided to remain present in the vicinity of the Trombay Police Station where the transaction was likely to take place. The proceedings of pre-trap panchanama commenced at 4.45 p.m. on 25/4/1992 and concluded at 5.45 p.m. on the same day.
AJN
8
of the raiding party followed them at a safe distance. At about 8.20 p.m., PW-1 Mukund and panch witness PW-3 Gholap entered the compound of Trombay Police Station. PW-7 PI Mahabadi and other members of the raiding party took their positions in the vicinity of the Trombay Police Station. After entering in the Police Station compound, PW-1 Mukund and panch witness PW-3 Gholap peeped in the charge-room through the door at their left and they noticed that the accused was standing in the open place in front of another door facing towards the lockup. Therefore, PW-1 Mukund and panch witness PW-3 Gholap went there. PW-1 Mukund made enquiries about his case. The accused gave the next date of the case and asked him whether he had brought the money. PW-1 Mukund told him that as directed by him, he had brought Rs.500/-. The accused then told him to give the money to him. After this conversation, PW-1 Mukund took out the wad of currency notes from the chest pocket of his full shirt with his right hand and extended it to the accused. The accused accepted the said wad in his right hand and kept it in the right side shirt pocket of his uniform and buttoned the same. PW-1 Mukund then came out of the police station and gave the pre determined signal. PW-7 PI Mahabadi and a constable rushed towards the charge-room and detained the
AJN
9
accused. An ultraviolet lamp was then brought. Ultraviolet rays were thrown on the hands and the clothes of the accused when bluish glow was seen on all the tips of the fingers and thumb of his right hand. Bluish glow was also seen on the pocket flap near the button of the right side chest pocket of the shirt of the accused. At the instance of PW-7 PI Mahabadi, the co-panch More unbuttoned the right side chest pocket and took out the wad of currency notes. Ultraviolet rays were then thrown on the notes, when bluish glow was seen on all the notes. The serial numbers of the said notes were compared with the serial numbers of the notes mentioned in the pre-trap panchanama and they tallied. The portion of the flap of the right side chest pocket of the shirt worn by the accused emitted bluish glow under ultraviolet rays. The mouth and the inner portions of the pocket of the shirt of the accused also emitted bluish glow. All these portions were encircled. The cash amount, the paper chit and the shirt on the person of the accused were seized under the post-trap panchanama. The post-trap panchanama was concluded at 11.15 p.m.
AJN
10
AJN
11
Judge was of the view that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He, therefore, acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against him. The said judgment and order is challenged in this criminal appeal by the State of Maharashtra.
AJN
12
the other hand, submitted that if the view taken by the trial court is a reasonably possible view, it should not be disturbed in an appeal against acquittal. In this connection, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180 . He submitted that PW-1 Mukund is an accused in a case registered against him at Trombay Police Station by the accused. The possibility of PW-1 Mukund involving the accused in a false case cannot be ruled out. He submitted that PW-5 Prakash is a relative of co-accused of PW-1 Mukund. His evidence also cannot be accepted at face value. Mr. Gole submitted that there are discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and it is unsafe to rely on the evidence of the Investigating Officer and convict the accused. He submitted that in the circumstances, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order and, therefore, the appeal be dismissed.
AJN
13
in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. An order of acquittal can be interfered with only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. However, if the view taken by the trial court is a reasonably possible view, it should not be interfered with. In such a situation, it is not open for this court to substitute its own view in place of the trial court's view. It is, therefore, necessary to find out whether the trial court's judgment is perverse and deserves to be set aside. Needless to say that if the trial court's view is a reasonably possible view, this court will not interfere with it.
AJN
14
him, he had beaten up Vijay with a piece of wood. He has also stated that his friends Dilip and Vikas might be having cycle chain with them when all of them assaulted Vijay. He has further admitted that because of the said beating, Vijay was injured on his hands and legs. It is also pertinent to note that he has admitted that a number of cases have been filed against his friend Dilip at Trombay and RCF Police Stations and Deonar Police Station and Dilip may be facing cases filed by Nehru Nagar and Chembur Police Stations also. He has further admitted that Dilip was detained under the National Security Act. Therefore, PW-1 Mukund is certainly not moving in good company. While examining the evidence of PW-1 Mukund, the possibility of his falsely involving the accused at whose police station case is registered against him and his friends must be kept in mind. Besides, looking to his involvement in criminal activities, which he has admitted, his evidence cannot be accepted without corroboration because it is evident that he has no regard for law. False allegations and exaggerated account must be ruled out before conviction can be based on his testimony. Even if the trap is held to be proved it will have to be examined whether money was thrust on the accused to falsely involve him in the case. In case there is no corroboration to
AJN
15
the complainant's evidence, it must be seen whether the defence of the accused is probabalized.
AJN
16
stated by PW-1 Mukund that on the same day at about 3.30 p.m. the accused took him and Dilip out of the lock up and told them that he needed Rs.600/-. He threatened that in case the money was not paid, he would arrest PW-1 Mukund and his friends in another case. According to PW-1 Mukund, he requested the accused that the amount may be reduced. The accused then reduced the amount to Rs.500/- and asked PW-1 Mukund to pay the amount on the next day i.e. on 24/4/1992. He was then released on bail by the accused. PW-1 Mukund has further stated that on the next day i.e. on 24/4/1992, he visited the Trombay Police Station and met the accused. The accused again asked him whether he has brought the money. When he told him that he has not brought the money, the accused got annoyed and warned him that he should bring the money on the next day. He then went to the ACB and lodged the complaint.
AJN
17
Prakash Sonawane. PW-1 Mukund could see the accused demanding money because the accused and PW-5 were standing in the charge room which is opposite the lock up where he was kept along with the other accused. It is pertinent to note that while in the examination-in-chief PW-1 Mukund has stated that the accused was in the charge room when PW-5 Prakash Sonawane came there and he could see them from the lock up which was opposite the charge room, in his cross-examination, he has stated that PW-5 Prakash Sonawane was standing in the compound of the police station. He has further stated that he was neither in the police station building nor in the charge room. If PW-5 Prakash Sonawane had not entered the charge room, then the question of the accused making demand of money in the charge room and PW-1 Mukund and his friend witnessing it from the lock up does not arise.
AJN
18
also pertinent to note that while the complainant has stated that PW-5 Prakash Sonawane handed over the bail order to the accused and the accused demanded money, PW-5 Prakash Sonawane has stated that he handed over the bail order to one havaldar and the accused came later on at 7.00 p.m. Moreover, while PW-1 Mukund has stated that the accused had made a demand for money to him, PW-5 Prakash Sonawane has, at one stage, stated that the accused demanded money from Vikas but in the cross-examination, he has sought to correct this statement. He has stated in the cross-examination that the statement made by him that accused demanded money from Vikas is incorrect. It must also be borne in mind that PW-5 Prakash Sonawane is the brother of Dilip, the co-accused of the complainant. He is, therefore, an interested witnesses. In view of the discrepancies in his evidence, it is difficult to place reliance on his evidence. PW-1 Mukund has then alleged that on 23/4/1992 at 7.00 p.m. the accused took PW-1 Mukund and his friend out of the lock up and demanded Rs.600/and settled the amount at Rs.500/-. For this demand, apart from the interested evidence of PW-1 Mukund, there is no other evidence. It is then contended by PW-1 Mukund that as he could not arrange for the money, on 24/4/1992, he went to Trombay
AJN
19
Police Station at 6.30 p.m. and met the accused and told him that he could not arrange for the money. According to him, the accused was then annoyed and asked him to come with money on the next day. For this demand also, apart from the interested evidence of PW-1 there is no other evidence on record. It is pertinent to note that PW-1 Mukund and his friends were already released on bail. It is, therefore, not understood why he would go to meet the accused at the police station on the next day. It is difficult to accept this story only on the basis of the evidence of PW-1 Mukund.
AJN
20
against PW-1 Mukund a case was registered at Trombay Police Station where the accused was attached, it is difficult to hold that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demanded bribe and accepted it. The possibility of the complainant thrusting this money on the accused cannot be ruled out. The defence of the accused is probabalized. In my opinion, in such circumstances, the order of acquittal cannot be reversed because the view taken by the trial court is a reasonably possible view. Even if, on facts, some other view is possible, since the trial court's view is a reasonably possible view, it cannot be disturbed. The accused must get the benefit of doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused is strengthened by the order of acquittal. In my opinion, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.
[SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.]
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order of acquittal of the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act can be reversed on appeal by the State.
Whether the complainant's evidence, which is uncorroborated and contains discrepancies, is sufficient to convict the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether two reasonable views are possible on the evidence such that the view favourable to the accused should be adopted.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Rajasthan v. Raja RamApplied¶64
State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Maharashtra
Shankar Krishna Parve
Ranjana Desai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
