Orissa High Court
Sidhartha Kumar Nath vs State Of Orissa Vig on 28 August, 2017
Author: S. K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
CRLA No. 15 Of 2006
An appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
from the judgment dated 16.09.2005 passed by the learned
Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.86 of
1996.
-----------------------------
Sidhartha Kumar Nath ......... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Orissa (Vig.) ......... Respondent
For Appellant: - Mr. Satyabrata Pradhan
Tushar Kanta Sahoo
For Respondent: - Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das
Standing Counsel (Vig.)
----------------------------
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Argument: 27.07.2017 Date of Judgment: 28.08.2017
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S S. K. SAHOO, J.The appellant Sidhartha Kumar Nath faced trial in the Court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.86 of 1996 for offences punishable under section 7 and section 13(1)(d) punishable under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter '1988 Act'). 2 The learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 16.09.2005 found the appellant guilty of the offences charged and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one year on each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for three months on each count and the sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.
2. P.W.1 Prafulla Kumar Ojha presented a written report before the Officer in charge, Vigilance police station, Cuttack on 29.07.1993, on the basis of which Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.37 of 1993 was registered under section 7 and section 13(1)(d) punishable under section 13(2) of the 1988 Act against the appellant. It is stated in the written report that P.W.1 was working as a contractor and he was given a contract to execute the work 'construction of Kandarabandha Bridge' in the year 1991 with contract value of Rs.36,000/-. The appellant was working as Junior Engineer in Balianta Block. P.W.1 had received an advance of Rs.22,000/- for the said work and on 23.07.1993 he received cash of Rs.5,000/- and for preparation of the bill of the aforesaid amount, he had given a sum of Rs.800/- towards bribe against his will to the appellant. It is further stated that after completion of the work, P.W.1 requested the appellant to prepare the final bill but the appellant demanded further sum of 3 Rs.1,000/- from P.W.1 on 28.07.1993. After negotiation, P.W.1 agreed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- to the appellant on 30.07.1993 but he reported the matter before the Vigilance police station.
3. P.W.6 Janardan Mohanty was the Inspector of Vigilance, Cell, Cuttack who on 29.07.1993 on receipt of the copy of the F.I.R. and on direction of S.P., Vigilance, Cuttack took up investigation of the case. During course of investigation, he examined P.W.1 and recorded his statement. He placed the requisition on the same day to lay out a trap to detect the appellant accepting the bribe red handed. On 30.07.1993 preparation for trap was held in the office of D.S.P., Vigilance Cell, Cuttack. P.W.1 and other vigilance officials attended the preparation. He produced ten numbers of Rs.50/- currency notes whose numbers were noted down in the preparation report. The currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and kept in a fourfold paper and were handed over to P.W.1 with instruction to give the same to the appellant on demand. Witness Maheswar Mohanty (P.W.5) was instructed to stand as over hearing witness and to accompany P.W.1 and to overhear the conversation and to pass on his signal by brushing his hair by hand after witnessing the transaction. The hand wash of the 4 constable and witnesses were preserved. A preparation report vide Ext.2 was prepared by P.W.6.
After preparation of the trap, P.W.6 along with the complainant, overhearing witness and other official witnesses proceeded to the spot. On their arrival at Balianta, they stopped the vehicle near the Block office at a distance and P.W.1 proceeded to the Block office being closely followed by P.W.5. In the Block office, the appellant was found sitting with the B.D.O. for which they waited for about forty five minutes till the appellant returned to his seat. When the appellant was returning to his seat, P.W.1 met him on the verandah and wished him. The appellant asked P.W.1 whether he had brought the thing as per his instruction to which P.W.1 answered in the affirmative. The appellant then told P.W.1 that his bill had already been prepared. P.W.1 brought out the tainted notes from the folded white paper and gave it to the appellant on the verandah. The appellant accepted the money in his right hand and proceeded towards his office room and P.W.1 and P.W.5 followed the appellant upto his room. He kept the bribe money in an almirah in his office room. After keeping the money in the almirah, he locked the almirah and sat on his chair. Immediately thereafter, the raiding party members on getting signal from P.W.5 rushed to the room of the 5 appellant, showed their identity cards to the appellant and challenged him that he had accepted the bribe. The appellant was perturbed and his hand wash was taken by the Vigilance Inspector in the chemical solution which turned pink. The pink solution was collected in another bottle and sealed then and there. On the instruction of the Vigilance Inspector, the appellant himself opened the almirah and showed the tainted currency notes kept therein. P.W.2 Binaya Kumar Prusty brought out the currency notes from inside the almirah and compared the numbers of the currency notes with the numbers earlier noted down in the preparation report (Ext.2) and it tallied. The currency notes were then seized by the Investigating Officer under a seizure list so also the folded white paper which was in the pocket of P.W.1. The personal search of the appellant was taken and one handkerchief, a fountain pen and some cash were recovered from the appellant. The details of the incident that took place in the Block office were reduced into typing and the detection report (Ext.3) was read over and explained to all the raiding party members and they found it to be correct and accordingly put their signatures on it. Numbers of seizures were made by P.W.6 at the spot who examined the witnesses, recorded their statements and arrested the appellant and 6 released him on P.R. bond. P.W.6 visited the spot again and prepared the spot map (Ext.14) and he sent material objects to S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh for examination. P.W.6 also moved the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Bhubaneswar and furnished relevant records and consolidated report for sanction for launching prosecution against the appellant. After receipt of the sanction order (Ext.17), P.W.6 submitted charge sheet on 23.05.1995 against the appellant under section 7 and section 13(1)(d) punishable under section 13(2) of the 1988 Act.
4. The defence plea of the appellant is one of denial. It is further pleaded that P.W.1 did not finish the contract work in time in spite of repeated instruction of the appellant rather bore grudge against him and on the relevant day P.W.1 refunded the money which he had taken earlier from the appellant towards repair of his motorcycle and in that pretext he had falsely entangled the appellant in the case. The appellant pleaded that the money received by him from P.W.1 was the loan amount and not the bribe.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses.
P.W.1 Prafulla Kumar Ojha is the informant in the case and he stated in detail regarding demand of bribe by the 7 appellant, his report to the Vigilance police, preparation for the trap, acceptance of bribe money by the appellant on demand and preparation of detection report.
P.W.2 Binaya Kumar Prusty was the Field Officer, Directorate, Animal Husbandry, Cuttack who stated about the preparation of the trap and also recovery of the tainted money from the appellant and different seizures made by P.W.6 including preparation of detection report.
P.W.3 Keshab Chandra Sethy was the Inspector, Vigilance Cell, Cuttack who also stated about the preparation for trap and recovery of tainted money from the appellant and preparation of detection report.
P.W.4 Satyananda Moharana was the Assistant Director, State F.S.L., Bhubaneswar who proved the chemical examination report (Ext.13).
P.W.5 Maheswar Mohanty was the Statistical Investigator in the Director of Veterinary who was present at the time of preparation for the trap and he also stated about the recovery of tainted money from the appellant and preparation of detection report.
P.W.6 Janarjan Mohanty was the Inspector of Vigilance who is the Investigating Officer in the case. 8
P.W.7 Surendranath Mishra was the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Bhubaneswar who accorded sanction (Ext.17) for prosecution of the appellant.
The prosecution exhibited seventeen documents. Ext.1 is the written report, Ext.2 is the preparation report, Ext.3 is the detection report, Exts.4, 5, 6 7, 8, 9, 10 are the seizure lists, Ext.11 is the copy of the preparation report, Ext.12 is the zimanama of brass seal, Ext.13 is the chemical examination report, Ext.14 is the spot map, Ext.15 is the measurement book, Ext.16 is the spillover project file and Ext.17 is the sanction order.
The prosecution proved three material objects. M.O.I is the currency notes, M.O.II is the brass seal and M.O.III to M.O.V are the three wash bottles.
6. The defence examined three witnesses.
D.W.1 Susant Mohapatra was the B.D.O., Balianta Block, Khurda who stated about non-completion of the assigned work by P.W.1 for which Rs.1,200/- was withheld from the payment made to P.W.1 from the running bill towards that work.
D.W.2 Laxman Kumar Nayak was the Senior Clerk in Development Section of Balianta Block who also stated about the non-completion of the work by P.W.1.
9
D.W.3 Gandharba Barik was the peon in the Block office, Balianta who stated that P.W.1 told him that he would refund the money to the appellant on 30th of the month.
The defence exhibited five documents. Ext.A is the list of work showing tentative expenditure, Ext.B is the notice issued to P.W.1 by B.D.O. on 09.10.1991, Ext.C is the relevant order in the file (Ext.16), Ext.D is the payment order of Rs.1,200/- made on 23.07.1993 and Ext.E is the relevant entry on 23.07.1993 in the measurement book (Ext.15).
7. The learned Trial Court after assessing the evidence on record came to hold that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, P.W.5 and P.W.6 relating to the observation of formalities of preparation of trap has not been challenged and on the question of trap and recovery of tainted money, their evidence is found to be clear, cogent and coherent. It is further held that prosecution has meticulously proved the fact of receipt of tainted money by the appellant and also proved the circumstance of trace of phenolphthalein in the hand wash of the appellant through the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3, 5 and the I.O. (P.W.6). It is further held that the witnesses P.Ws.2, 3, 5 and 6 proved the factum of demand of bribe as narrated by P.W.1 before them at the time of preparation of trap. It is further held that the evidence of D.W.1 10 that the work had not reached the stage of preparation of final bill can hardly be believed and that the plea of the appellant that P.W.1, a contractor borrowed money from him does not appear to be believable. The learned Trial Court disbelieved the defence plea that the tainted money received by the appellant from P.W.1 was the loan amount and not the bribe.
8. Mr. Satyabrata Pradhan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended there are material contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 relating to the demand of bribe money by the appellant. The place of demand is also discrepant. He further contended that there are ample material on record to show that the work which was assigned to P.W.1 was not completed and therefore, the preparation of final bill does not arise which goes to the root of the matter and falsifies the prosecution case that for preparation of such bill, the demand was made by the appellant. It is further contended that by examining defence witnesses, proving certain relevant documents and eliciting certain material aspects from the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the defence plea has been established by preponderance of probabilities and the learned Trial Court has rejected the defence plea in a mechanical manner without proper analysis of evidence.
11
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Das, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department contended that the defence plea that an amount of Rs.500/- was taken by P.W.1 from the appellant towards repair of his motorcycle on 23.07.1993 is not at all acceptable inasmuch as on the very day P.W.1 had received a sum of Rs.7,448/- from the Block office. He further contended that the evidence of P.W.1 is convincing and it gets corroboration not only from the evidence of the over hearing witness P.W.5 but other witnesses. It is contended that when acceptance of the money and its recovery is not disputed by the defence and there are clinching material relating to completion of work in question and demand of bribe for the preparation of final bill, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court.
9. Law is well settled as held in case of State of Punjab -Vrs.- Madan Mohan Lal Verma reported in A.I.R. 2013 S.C. 3368 that mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. The burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under section 20 of the 1988 Act by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to 12 establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in section 7 of the 1988 Act. While invoking the provisions of section 20 of 1988 Act, the Court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt.
In case of State of Maharashtra -Vrs.- Dnyaneshwar reported in (2009) 44 Orissa Criminal
Reports 425, it is held that for arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of the offence i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification have been satisfied or not, the Court must take into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on the record in their entirety. For the said purpose, indisputably, the presumptive evidence, as is laid down in section 20 of the 1988 Act, must also be taken into consideration but then in respect thereof, it is trite, the standard of burden of proof on the accused vis-à-vis the standard of burden of proof on the prosecution would differ.
In the case of Punjabrao -Vrs.- State of Maharashtra reported in A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 486, it is held that it is too well settled that in a case where the accused offers an 13 explanation for receipt of the alleged amount, the question that arises for consideration is whether that explanation can be said to have been established. It is further clear that the accused is not required to establish his defence by proving beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution, but can establish the same by preponderance of probability.
In case of V. Sejappa -Vrs.- State reported in A.I.R. 2016 S.C. 2045, it is held that in order to constitute an offence under section 7 of 1988 Act, proof of demand is a sine qua non. It is further held that the initial burden of proving that the accused accepted or obtained the amount other than legal remuneration is upon the prosecution. It is only when this initial burden regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is successfully discharged by the prosecution, then burden of proving the defence shifts upon the accused and a presumption would arise under section 20 of the 1988 Act. It is further held that in the case at hand, all that is established by the prosecution was the recovery from the appellant and mere recovery of money was not enough to draw presumption under section 20 of the Act.
In case of P. Satyanarayana Murty -Vrs.- The District Inspector of Police reported in A.I.R. 2015 S.C. 14 3549, it is held that the proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of 1988 Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefore, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under sections 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder.
In case of Panalal Damodar Rathi -Vrs.- State of Maharashtra reported in A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1191 that the evidence of the complainant should be corroborated in material particulars and the complainant cannot be placed on any better footing than that of an accomplice and corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime has to be insisted upon.
In case of Mukhitar Singh -Vrs.- State of Punjab reported in (2016) 64 Orissa Criminal Reports (S.C.) 1016 it is held that once the demand and voluntary acceptance of 15 illegal gratification knowing it to be bribe are proved then conviction must follow under section 7 of the 1988 Act.
Learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department placed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of West Bengal -Vrs.- Kailash Chandra Pandey reported in A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 119 wherein it is held that the appellate Court should be slow in re-appreciating the evidence. The Trial Court which has the occasion to see the demeanour of the witnesses is in a better position to appreciate it and the appellate Court should not lightly brush aside the appreciation done by the Trial Court except for cogent reasons.
10. In the case in hand, the acceptance of Rs.500/- by the appellant from P.W.1 is not disputed. It is also not disputed that there was recovery of Rs.500/- from the appellant. The only issue which arises for consideration is whether such amount was demanded by the appellant from P.W.1 as bribe for preparation of the final bill or it was the refund of the loan amount which was given by the appellant to P.W.1 for the repair of his motorcycle on 23.07.1993.
Since the initial burden of proving that the appellant demanded the amount other than legal remuneration is upon the 16 prosecution, let me analyse the evidence on record to see as to how far the prosecution has successfully discharged the burden.
According to P.W.1, he completed the work and requested the appellant to prepare the final bill but the appellant demanded another Rs.1,000/- from him as bribe to prepare such bill which was made on 28.07.1993. P.W.1 further stated that after negotiation, he agreed to pay Rs.500/- to the appellant on 30.07.1993. It is the specific defence plea that the work which was assigned to P.W.1 was not completed and the stage of preparation of final bill had not reached and therefore, the question of demand by the appellant for preparation of the final bill is not acceptable.
The defence has given specific suggestion to P.W.1 that he had not completed the work and that the stage for preparation of the final bill had not come which was denied by P.W.1. P.W.1 has stated that he did not remember the date on which he completed the execution of work in question. Though he stated that he intimated to the B.D.O. as well as the Chairman of the Block that he had completed the work but he stated that he could not produce the copies of the letters addressed by him to the B.D.O. He admits that the payment of final bills is made only after the order of the B.D.O. D.W.1 is the 17 B.D.O. and he has specifically stated that during his incumbency, he had the occasion to know the work of Kandarabandha bridge remained incomplete and out of five items, only three items were completed. He further stated that there was discontentment among the people of the locality for non-completion of the project by the contractor and the contractor was repeatedly asked by him to complete the work. He further stated that the appellant also censured P.W.1 on number of times and asked him to complete the work and Rs.1,200/- was withheld from the payment made to P.W.1 from the running bill towards that work and that final bill stage had not reached when the case was registered. D.W.1 further stated that he had check measured the concerned work allotted to P.W.1 as per the concerned file Ext.16. He has also proved the measurement book Ext.15. The Investigating Officer (P.W.6) has stated that he has not ascertained the date of commencement of the work nor its completion and he has not seized any documents from the revenue section showing completion of the bridge. He further stated that Ext.16 does not show any order or office note regarding completion of the concerned bridge work.
Therefore, there is no corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1 that the assigned work of construction of 18 Kandarabandha bridge was completed as on the date of trap. The documentary evidence proved by the prosecution like Ext.15 and Ext.16 does not indicate about such completion aspect. Though P.W.1 stated that he intimated to the B.D.O. about the completion but D.W.1 has not whispered anything in that respect. The copies of the letters stated to have written by P.W.1 relating to completion of work to the B.D.O. as well as Chairman of the Block have not been proved by the prosecution. The I.O. (P.W.6) has not made any spot verification to see whether the assigned work has been completed or not. Therefore, on overall analysis of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, I am of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the assigned work of construction of Kandarabandha bridge was completed by the date of trap. If that was the position as on the date of trap, there was no occasion for P.W.1 to ask the appellant for preparation of the final bill and also for the appellant to demand bribe amount for such preparation.
So far as the demand of bribe money by the appellant on the date of trap, the relevant witnesses are P.W.1 and P.W.5. P.W.1 has stated that he met the appellant on the verandah and wished him and the appellant asked him as to 19 whether he had brought the thing as per his instruction to which he answered in the affirmative and then the appellant told him that the bill had been prepared. P.W.1 has further stated that he brought out the tainted currency notes from the folded white paper and gave it to the appellant on the verandah who accepted the money in his right hand and proceeded to the office room. P.W.5 on the other hand stated that the appellant returned to his office and asked P.W.1 if he had brought the money and P.W.1 brought out the tainted money from the paper and handed over the same to the appellant. Therefore, there are discrepancies in the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.5 relating to what was told by the appellant to P.W.1, the place where it was told and the place where the money was accepted. The complicity of the appellant is sought to be established by the conversation that took place between the appellant and P.W.1 which was overheard by P.W.5. As the entire case of the prosecution depends upon the acceptance of evidence relating to the conversation between P.W.1 and the appellant during course of which the appellant alleged to have demanded and accepted the money and since P.W.1 has not stated that the appellant asked him as to whether he had brought the money which is contrary to the evidence of P.W.5, it is very difficult to accept that the prosecution has 20 proved the vital aspect of 'demand' of bribe money through the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5. Though P.W.1 stated that prior to the acceptance of tainted currency notes, the appellant told him that the bill had been prepared but the same is not spoken to by P.W.5. Therefore, the version regarding conversation as given by P.W.1 and P.W.5 is not consistent. The place of conversation between P.W.1 and the appellant and passing of money is discrepant. P.W.1 stated that it took place on the verandah of the Block office whereas P.W.5 stated that it took place inside the office room of the appellant. The evidence of P.W.1 that the appellant asked him in an open place like verandah of the Block Office as to whether he had brought the thing as per his instruction and he also accepted the tainted currency notes from him on the verandah is very difficult to be accepted. This part of the prosecution story is opposed to ordinary human conduct.
The defence plea is that on the relevant day P.W.1 refunded the money which he had taken earlier from the appellant towards repair of his motorcycle. P.W.1 has stated that he was having a Rajdoot motor cycle. Though he denied the defence suggestion to have taken loan of Rs.500/- from the appellant for repair of his motor cycle on 23.07.1993 at Samantpur but P.W.5 has stated that on being challenged by the 21 vigilance officer that he had received the money, the appellant replied that P.W.1 had taken loan of Rs.500/- from him on 23.07.1993 in order to repair his motor cycle and that he had sent message to P.W.1 through others to return back his loan money and P.W.1 had intimated that he will return back the loan amount of Rs.500/- on 30.07.1993. It has been confronted to P.W.2 and proved through the I.O. (P.W.6) that he stated that on being asked, the appellant told that P.W.1 had taken a loan amount of Rs.500/- on 23.07.1993 from him for repairing his motor cycle and that he sent message through others to P.W.1 to return his loan money and P.W.1 intimated that he will return back the loan amount of Rs.500/- on 30.07.1993. Similarly it has been confronted to P.W.3 and proved through the I.O. (P.W.6) that he stated that on being asked, the appellant told that on 23.07.1993 P.W.1 had taken a loan of Rs.500/- from him in order to repair his motor cycle and that he sent message through others to P.W.1 to return back his loan money and P.W.1 intimated that he will return the loan amount of Rs.500/- on 30.07.1993. Therefore, P.W.2 and P.W.3 who had made statements before the Investigating Officer (P.W.6) regarding the statement made by the appellant which has got relevance to his defence plea, have deliberately pleaded ignorance of the same 22 which have been proved through P.W.6. The detection report (Ext.3) also mentions about such statement made by the appellant immediately after the trap. Therefore, the defence plea cannot be stated to be an afterthought one. D.W.1 has stated that prior to the occurrence, in his chamber the appellant had instructed D.W.3 to receive Rs.500/- from P.W.1 which he had taken towards repair of his motor cycle. D.W.3 has also stated that the appellant told him that he had given Rs.500/- to P.W.1 on loan for repair of his motor cycle and subsequently when he met P.W.1, he told him that he would return the money on 30th. Even though on 23.07.1993 P.W.1 had received Rs.7448/- as per the file Ext.16 but that would not ipso facto falsifies the defence plea of advancement of loan of Rs.500/- by the appellant to P.W.1 for the repair of his motor cycle. What was the timing of receipt of Rs.7448/- is not borne out from record though it presupposes that it must be within the office hours. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department that why P.W.1 would take a loan of Rs.500/- from the appellant when he had received Rs.7448/- from the Block Office on that very day cannot be accepted. Since the appellant is not required to establish his defence plea by proving beyond reasonable doubt like the prosecution but can 23 establish the same by preponderance of probability, an overall assessment of the matter indicates that the story advanced by the prosecution is not true and the defence version seems to be more probable. The learned Trial Court has not considered the defence plea of the appellant on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and whimsically rejected the same holding that the plea of the appellant that P.W.1, a contractor borrowed money from him for whatever purpose it might be ab initio does not appear believable. Necessity knows no place, timing and person from whom any help will be sought for by a needy.
11. In view of the materials on record, in the absence of any acceptable evidence with regard to demand of the amount as illegal gratification, mere proof of acceptance of some amount which the defence plea probablises as loan amount and its recovery would not lead to a presumption under section 20 of the 1988 Act. Though there is some suspicion but suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof. In the circumstances, since the guilt of the appellant has not been established beyond reasonable doubt and the impugned judgment suffers from perversity, I am constrained to give benefit of doubt to the appellant.
24
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and the sentence passed thereunder is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges. The appellant is on bail by virtue of the order of this Court. He is discharged from liability of his bail bond. The personal bond and the surety bond stand cancelled.
.................................
S. K. Sahoo, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 28th August, 2017/Sisir