Dismissed

State of Chhattisgarh v. Jamuna Prasad Shende

Chhattisgarh HC13 Sept 2023ACQA/189/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the State's acquittal appeal. The trial court acquitted the respondent of corruption charges, finding the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court held that given the testimony, two views were possible and the view favouring the accused must prevail.

What did the court decide?

The acquittal appeal was dismissed, thereby upholding the acquittal of the respondent.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Jamuna Prasad Shende — Corruption | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

ACQA No. 189 of 2009 Judgment reserved on : 02/08/2023 Judgment delivered on : 13/09/2023

¶5

State of Chhattisgarh Through: Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta Office, Bhopal, Unit- Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Jamuna Prasad Shende, S/o Bajrang Yas Shende, Aged about- 58 years, Sr. Cooperative Inspector, Office of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, (Ankekshan), Raipur, R/o Shankar Nagar, Moti Chowk, Durg, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For State/Appellant : Mr. Wasim Miyan, P.L. For Respondent : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate

¶11

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey CAV Judgment

¶12

This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the State against the

¶13

judgment dated 28.09.2005 passed by the learned Special and First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 14/2002 whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent of the charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶14

The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 31.12.2001, respondent was posted as Senior Cooperative Inspector at Raipur. On 22.10.2001, election was conducted in Sundar Nagar Griha Nirman Society. Complainant- Manoj Rajput (P.W.-10) and other

¶15

¶16

persons participated in the said election. Complainant- Manoj Rajput (P.W.-10) complained to Revenue and Cooperative Minister, Chhattsigarh, Raipur (C.G.) about misappropriation or irregularities done in the said election. The complaint was forwarded to SubRegistrar Cooperative Society, Raipur for enquiry and SubRegistrar directed the respondent/accused to conduct enquiry and submit the enquiry report and at that time, accused/respondent was posted as Senior Cooperative Inspector. On 24.12.2001, when complainant and another person contacted the accused/respondent to enquire about the submission of enquiry report then accused/respondent demanded a sum of Rs.4,000/- for submitting the same. Thereafter, complainant- Manoj Rajput filed a written complaint before Lokayukta Office. A trap team was constituted and on 31.12.2001 at 11:00 A.M., accused/respondent was caught redhanded by the trap team while taking the bribe money. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent and charges were framed as mentioned above.

¶17

So as to hold the accused/respondent guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and statement of the accused/respondent was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. In his defence, respondent/accused also examined three witnesses namely Ramesh Kumar Thakur as D.W.-1, Mahesh Chandra Jain as D.W.-2 & Santosh Agrawal as D.W.-3.

¶18

After appreciating oral and documentary evidence, trial court has

¶19

¶20

acquitted the respondent of the charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Hence, this appeal filed by the appellant/State.

¶21

Learned State counsel submits that the learned trial Court has erred in passing the impugned judgment as all the prosecution witnesses corroborated each other’s statements but learned trial Court failed to believe their depositions on oath and wrongly acquitted the accused/respondent. In this case, accused/respondent was caught red-handed while taking the bribe money but the learned trial Court only on minor contradictions and omissions acquitted the accused/respondent of such grievous offence. In this case, prosecution has proved the demand and acceptance but the learned trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly. Hence, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned judgment.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

¶24

In the present case, complainant- Manoj Rajput (P.W.-10) did not support the prosecution case before the learned trial Court and was declared hostile. He was cross-examined by the prosecution but he denied all suggestions of the prosecution. He admitted his signature on complaint (Ex. P/31) but he stated that this complaint was written on instruction of Sanjay Pandey and he did not know whether the allegations against the respondent/accused are true or

¶25

¶26

false. Other witnesses also did not corroborate each other’s statements about demand of bribe money i.e. Rs.4,000/-. It is also admitted by Mr. Vishwas Chandrakar (P.W.-14) that when fingers of the respondent/accused were dipped in the solution of Sodium Carbonate, then the colour of the said solution did not change. Currency notes were recovered from the bag kept behind the accused/respondent at Chitambara Hotel. Therefore, the learned trial Court found that the prosecution did not prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe money and thus, failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

¶27

Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. passed in (2014) 13 SCC 55 has held in para 9 as under:-

¶28

“9.…...Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent.”

¶29

In this case also, prosecution witnesses did not prove this fact that the respondent/accused demanded bribe money and accepted the same from the complainant.

¶30

11.Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Muralidhar alias Gidda & Another v. State of Karnataka passed in (2014) 5 SCC 730 has held in paras 11 & 12 as under:-

¶31

11. As early as in 1952, this Court in Surajpal Singh V. State [AIR 1952 SC 52: 1952 Cri LJ 331] while dealing with the powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code observed: (AIR p.54, para 7)

¶32

“7...... the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order

¶33

¶34

of acquittal was founded, but it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court, and the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons.”

¶35

12. Suffice it to say that this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following:-

¶36

(i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court;

¶37

(ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal;

¶38

(iii) Thought, the powers of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanour of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such

¶39

¶40

conclusions is fully justified; and

¶41

(iv) Merely because the appellate court on reappreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court.

¶42

Applying the aforesaid legal proposition in the present case as well, it is clear that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court acquitting the respondent of the charges under Sections Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are based on proper appreciation of material available on record as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. This Court finds no illegality in the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent of the aforesaid charges. Even otherwise, there is a settled legal position that if two views are possible, the one favouring the accused has to be taken. The appellate Court should not ordinarily interfere with the judgment of acquittal until and unless the findings of acquittal have been arrived at by ignoring the relevant material and considering irrelevant ones. In this case, this Court finds no such illegality in the findings recorded by the trial Court which warrant interference by this Court.

¶43

Accordingly, the acquittal appeal being devoid of any substance is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed as such.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

(Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶46

Ruchi

State of Chhattisgarh v. Jamuna Prasad Shende

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Jamuna Prasad Shende

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prashenjit Mitra Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Limited And Ors.

Harinarayan Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Subhashani Gupta Vs Ramesh Gupta

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Rajesh Verma and Ors.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs B.L.Sharma

Nihal Parwej Vs Mohd.Hafiq Ansari @ Ballu Bhai