State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Suresh Singh Chauhan

This application for grant of leave to appeal has been preferred under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 14/12/2018 passed by Special Judge (under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") in Special Case No. 7/2016, whereby respondent has been acquitted of the offences punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and 201 of the IPC.

Prosecution case, in brief is that, complainant Samle Singh Bhadoriya made a complaint on 31/8/15 to the effect that one Ranveer Singh had lodged a report against him and his son Gaurav at P.S.Ater, in respect of which, the SHO of P.S.Ater/respondent had called them to the Police Station and accepted their bail. However, he demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.2000/- and on being denied, was not submitting Challan in the competent Court and threatening the complainant and his son to pay him the bribe amount. He submitted in the complaint that he intended to get the respondent caught red handed. On such complaint (Ex.P/5), Inspector Manish Kumar Sharma (PW11) was authorized to carry out further investigation. On 31/8/15 itself, Manish Kumar Sharma handed over a Voice Recorder to the complainant vide Panchnama (Ex.P/16) and asked him to get the conversation with regard to demand of bribe by accused recorded in the said Voice Recorder. On 2/9/15, the complainant along with constable Deeraj Nayak went to the Office of respondent. Complainant alone went inside the Office and got the conversation with regard to demand of illegal gratification of Rs.1500/- recorded in the Voice Recorder and handed over the same to the concerned Authority vide Panchnama (Ex.P/17). In the conversation, the complainant had assured the respondent that he will arrange for the bribe amount of Rs.1500/- and pay the same to the respondent on 3/9/15. Thereafter, after completion of necessary formalities, a trap was set up and three notes each of Rs.500/- in denomination were handed over to Panch witness Rakesh Sharma, who with the help of another Panch witness Atar Singh (PW1) prepared the Panchnama of notes vide Ex.P/70. Constable Bhag Singh Tomar (PW5) treated the notes with phenolphthalein powder. Thereafter, the said notes were handed over to the complainant. The complainant went to the Police Station and after five minutes signaled the other members of the trap party who were waiting outside to come. He apprised them that the respondent had taken the amount and kept it in the upper drawer of his table. However, by that time, the respondent sensing trouble, had fled, while two constables namely Sevaram Marko and Ramjilal who were sitting in front of the respondent, were inquired and they informed that the respondent was sitting there only. The notes were recovered from drawer of respondent's table. The notes were verified and found to be the same. A mobile was also seized from the table, received call detail of which confirmed that it was the same mobile to which complainant had called from the mobile of Constable Dheeraj Nayak (PW2). The drawer was rubbed with a cotton and the said cotton was immersed in the solution of sodium carbonate, which turned pink. During investigation, the accused/respondent denied giving sample of his voice and asserted that he had not demanded any bribe from the complainant. Accordingly, crime was registered and the respondent/accused was charged with the offences punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and 201 of the IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicant, while making reference to the evidence on record, submitted that the trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence and the judgment of acquittal deserves to be interfered with.

Having regard to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, the impugned judgment is perused.

The evidence of the complainant could not be recorded as he had expired. The trial Court found that the Voice Recorder had remained with the shadow witness Dheeraj Nayak for about one day before being handed over to the Investigating Officer and the explanation given for delayed submission of the Voice Recorder was not satisfactory. No witness had deposed that he/she had heard the conversation regarding bribe between the complainant and the respondent. No witness or member of the trap party had seen the respondent accepting the bribe. The sole eye-witness Ramjilal Sharma (PW3) had not proved the fact that the complainant had accepted the bribe and kept it in his drawer. In his cross-examination, he admitted that other employees also used to sit on the table wherefrom the notes were allegedly seized. Investigating Officer Manish Sharma (PW11) deposed that he was not in a position to say as to whether the notes were kept by the respondent himself in the drawer or not. The same version has been reiterated by Atar Singh (PW1). The spot map did not reflect mobile and black bag allegedly seized from the table of the respondent. Dheeraj Nayak did not prove the fact that he had heard the mobile talk between the complainant and the respondent. The evidence of Atar Singh (PW1) in this regard was not found to be credible. The trial Court found that there were material contradictions and omissions in the prosecution evidence going to the root of the case. Accordingly, the trial Court found that the evidence on record was not sufficient to establish the culpability of the respondent.

This Court agrees with the findings recorded by the trial Court that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.

Taking into consideration the reasons assigned on the face of evidence on record establishing the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the learned trial Court was apparently a possible view.

As such, no interference is called for with the order of acquittal in question.

The application, being devoid of merit and substance, stands dismissed.