The State Of Maharashtra vs Balu Nivrutti Nawali

State hereby takes exception to the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.02.2013 passed by learned Special Judge, Ahmednagar in Special Case (ACB) No.3 of 2010 acquitting respondent from the charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

In short, prosecution case in Trial Court was that on 02.07.2009, one Bharat Vairagar, who was proceeding on motorcycle, accidentally fell and suffered injuries. His relatives demanded compensation or else threatened to lodge complaint. At that time accused/respondent, who was a police official, demanded Rs.2,000/- for hushing up the criminal case of causing accident and, therefore, complaint to that extent was lodged with ACB authorities, who arranged a trap by engaging a panch witness. Complainant and shadow panch approached accused and on demand, tainted currency was paid, which was accepted and, thereafter, predetermined signal was relayed, resulting into apprehension of accused. On complaint by ACB Officer, crime was registered, investigated and accused was tried. Trial was conducted, but it ended up in acquittal. Hence, the appeal.

Pointing to the evidence on record, learned APP would submit that the prosecution has proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt by examining the complainant and the shadow panch. The sanctioning authority was also examined, and the learned Trial Court recorded a finding that the sanction was valid and was accorded upon due application of mind. However, according to learned APP, on the point of demand, though the complainant had not supported the prosecution case, his entire evidence ought not to have been discarded. There was also evidence of shadow panch. The evidence of the Investigating Officer was also not accepted, and the prosecution evidence was held to be insufficient to prove the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, prayers are raised for complete re-appreciation of evidence and to allow the appeal.

Learned Counsel for respondent/accused would justify the judgment and order of acquittal and also took this Court through the testimony of complainant, shadow panch and the cross-examination faced by them. He pointed out that complainant himself has not supported prosecution and, therefore, according to him, Trial Court has committed no error whatsoever in refusing the case of the prosecution.

Re-appreciated the entire evidence. Evidence of PW1 complainant is at Exhibit-15 and that of PW3 shadow panch is at Exhibit-27. PW2 seems to be the sanctioning authority and PW4 seems to be the Investigating Officer.

The prosecution case before the Trial Court was that the complainant was having two cows and two she-buffaloes. On 02.07.2009, one cow suddenly left the complainant's field and came onto the Wambhori Road. One Bharat Vairagar, who was proceeding on his two-wheeler, on seeing the livestock on the road, lost control over his vehicle and sustained a head injury. The complainant shifted the injured Bharat to the hospital, however, he succumbed to the injuries. The relatives of Bharat, as well as some villagers, approached the complainant and demanded compensation and threatened to lodge a complaint with the police. Meanwhile, compromise seems to have reached between the complainant and wife of Bharat and he duly paid Rs.30,000/- and compromise was drawn on stamp paper. However, according to the complainant, the accused, who was serving as an Assistant Sub-Inspector at Rauri Police Station, demanded an amount of Rs.2,000/- for hushing up the matter. Complainant as was not willing, he approached ACB, resulting into action by ACB.

The specific defence of the accused before the Trial Court was that the amount of Rs.2,000/- was not demanded by way of a bribe, but was to be paid to the relatives of deceased Bharat.

As pointed out, the complainant himself, who is examined at Exhibit-15, has not supported the prosecution case, but, nothing fruitful has been elicited from him in his cross-examination by the learned APP. In paragraph No.9 of his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that, even after paying Rs.30,000/-, the villagers were demanding amount of Rs.2,000/- towards the expenses of the Maruti Omni Van which was used to shift the injured to the hospital. Further, in paragraph No.10 of his cross-examination, he has admitted that, the accused in his explanation had stated that the amount of Rs.2,000/- was to be paid to the relatives of the deceased and the said amount was handed over to the accused for being paid to them.

Though shadow panch PW3 narrated events that took place since his visit to ACB office, meeting complainant, listening to his story and signing complaint and pre-trap panchanama, in paragraph No.4 of his cross-examination, he has admitted that no talk took place between complainant and accused in his presence in what context the amount was handed over to the accused.

Therefore, accused has probabilized the defence. Moreover, as stated above, when complainant himself has admitted that the amount given to the accused was meant to be passed on to the relatives of deceased Bharat, the aspect of demand of bribe comes under shadow of doubt. Consequently, when the complainant has not supported the prosecution case on the point of demand of bribe as well as acceptance, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved the same beyond reasonable doubt.

Perused the judgment under challenge. The learned Trial Court has correctly appreciated the available evidence. Case of prosecution as well as defence has been taken into account and findings are recorded by assigning sound reasons. No good ground being made out on merits to interfere, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the following order is passed :-