Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Madhukantaben D/O Baburao Vishwasrao ... on 15 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.A/681/2008 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 681 of 2008
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
MADHUKANTABEN D/O BABURAO VISHWASRAO KADAM
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR JM BUDDHBHATTI(1239) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 15/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned APP for the Appellant - State and Mr. Jiten M. Buddhbhatti, learned advocate for the Respondent.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1 The accused was serving as Assistant Sub-Inspector in the office of Women Security Cell, situated in the premises of the Police Commissioner of Vadodara city.
The accused has been charged with the offence U/s-7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The offence against the accused was registered with A.C.B. Police station, Vadodara, vide Cr. No.11/02 on 13.9.2002. The accused was arrested on 14.9.2002 and Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Thu May 22 21:30:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/681/2008 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2025 undefined thereafter, when she was produced before the Special Court, she had been released on bail during the pendency of investigation as well as trial. It seems that the investigation was concluded by the police and the charge sheet was submitted on 22.04.2003. This Court being a Special Court constituted under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, the matter has been taken up for disposal according to law.
2.2 In order to understand and appreciate the case of the prosecution, some relevant facts are required to be noted at this juncture:
A.C.B. Police station, P.I. Mr. Indravadan Balkrushna Vyas had received information regarding some illegal gratification being taken by the Police Personnel deployed in the office of the Women Security Cell, in the premises of the Office of the Police Commissioner, Vadodara. Such information was received on 12.9.2002 The Police Inspector Mr. Vyas arranged for some two persons to perform the function as the panch witnesses. Thereafter on inquiry, it was found that one Dulsukhbhai Khodabhai Pannar had approached the office of the Women Security Cell in connection with the Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Thu May 22 21:30:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/681/2008 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2025 undefined matter relating to his cousin - Manjulaben. The Police Officer consulted this person and he was persuaded to give co-operation in a decoy trap, which was going to be arranged by the Police Inspector. The said person - Dalsukhbhai Khodabhai Parmar had expressed his willingness to work as Punter (Decoy) witness and therefore, he was taken to the office of A.C.B. Police station, Vadodara. He was introduced to two panch witnesses, Maheshkumar Solanki and one Veenaben Sharma. Both were Government servants and thereafter, the members of the raiding party as well as the office of the A.C.B. had explained the object of the decoy trap and thereafter, the office of the A.C.B. had produced Rs. 500/- for the purpose of use during the decoy trap. There were four currency notes denoting value of Rs. 100/- and two currency notes were denoting value of Rs. 50/- only. Then, the Officers of the Police station had explained the use of Anthracene powder and thereafter, a demonstration and experiment was carried out. The use and the characteristics of the Anthracene powder were also experimented and it was stated that wherever the Anthracene powder touches, it leaves an impression of pink shining on that part. It was also shown that the Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Thu May 22 21:30:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/681/2008 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2025 undefined currency notes were tested with Anthracene powder and thereafter, they were examined, under the Ultra Violet Lamp (UV Lamp). It was found that the currency notes were containing the fluorescence and thereafter, they were put in the pocket of the shirt on the left side, which was put on by the punter witness-Dalsukhbhai. He was instructed not to touch the money unless and until the requirement arises to give the money by way of bribe. Thereafter, everybody, who had touched with Anthracene powder, had washed hands and thereafter again, they were tested under the UV Lamp and the result was that the Anthracene powder had disappeared. The Police Officer, thereafter, prepared the panchnama in that regard in Part-I and they were signed by both the panch witnesses as well as P.I. Mr. Vyas. 2.3 The raiding party had thereafter proceeded towards the Central Jail road and the vehicle was stopped near the S.S.G. hospital, Vadodara. Thereafter, as it was understood, panch witness Maheshkumar Solanki had followed the complainant as the shadow witness and rest of the members of the raiding party were instructed to take the position around and near the office of Women Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Thu May 22 21:30:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/681/2008 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2025 undefined Security Cell. The Punter witness-Dalsukhbhai entered the premises of Police Commissioner and he got two passes issued in the name of Dalsukhbhai. Then, they went to the office of the Women Security Cell and the accused Madhukantaben Baburao Kadam was found sitting in the chair of her chamber. There was one another lady Head Constable and two other persons were also sitting there. When the decoy witness-Dalsukhbhai went there, a formal conversation took place between the decoy witness and the accused. When the decoy witness asked her to resolve the problem of his cousin sister, in order to obtain divorce, the accused told him that the matter was very complicated and for that, some money was required to be given by way of illegal gratification.
The decoy witness Dalsukhbhai had paid Rs. 300/- and thereafter, he went out of the Chamber to give a signal by raising his two hands. On getting the signal, the members of the raiding party rushed into the Chamber and the P.I. Mr. Vyas as well as P.I. Mr. Rakesh Sharma introduced themselves and also instructed the accused not to make any movement. The panch witness- Maheshkumar Solanki had introduced himself as the relative of the decoy witness-Dalsukhbhai and on inquiry Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Thu May 22 21:30:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/681/2008 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2025 undefined by the accused, he had told that he was also entangled in the same situation in respect of his daughter. When the Police officers entered the Chamber, the accused had thrown the currency notes on the floor. The Police Officers directed another panch witness- Veenaben Sharma to collect the currency notes and thereafter, to find out the presence of Anthracene powder on the person and other parts of the body of the accused, a test through U.V. Lamp was conducted. The presence of Anthracene powder was found on the fingers and the palm of the accused. The presence of such powder was also found on the part of the saree wrapped around the waist. During the course of this exercise, the police managed another set of dress and the particular saree containing the Anthracene powder was recovered for the purpose of investigation. The Police Officers had en- circled with black pen around the impression of Anthracene powder. The Police Officers had, before conducting such test, shown and examined their hands under the UV Lamp to the accused with a view to satisfy her that there was no any previous presence of such Anthracene powder on their hands. Thereafter, the panch witness- Veenaben Sharma was tested with U.V. Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Thu May 22 21:30:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/681/2008 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2025 undefined Lamp because she had lifted the currency notes from the floor and her hands were also carrying the impression and therefore, that part of the procedure was reduced in writing during the panchnama. The numbers of currency notes recovered on the scene of crime were compared and verified with the numbers referred in the first part of the panchnama and they were found to be the correct. Thereafter, the remaining currency notes from the pocket of the decoy witness- Dalsukhbhai were brought out of the pocket and they were also compared with the numbers referred in the panchnama earlier. After completing the entire exercise, a panchnama was prepared in second part and both the panch witnesses had signed the documents, which were prepared in presence of P.I. Mr. Vyas. The accused had been arrested on the next day and produced before the Court. It appears that the Police Inspector Mr. Vyas, thereafter, recorded the statements of some witnesses and the further investigation was conducted by Police Inspector, Mr. Rakesh Sharma, with the A.C.B. Police station, Vadodara, who thereafter submitted the charge sheet in the Court.
Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Thu May 22 21:30:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/681/2008 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2025 undefined
3. The learned Trial Court after considering the entire evidence had recorded its reasons for acquittal as under:
"14. In the instant case, therefore, it appears that there is a decoy trap and therefore, the evidence of the complainant should be viewed with extreme care and if it is not supported by independent evidence, then, it should be believed to be a evidence of the accomplice, which ordinarily should not be given weight. In the instant case, therefore, particularly when the punter witness has not supported the case of the prosecution, when the eye witness Maheshchandra Panchal has not supported the case of the prosecution, when the prosecution has not examined two important witnesses, lady A.S.I. present in the Chamber and one Nimishaben, wife of Maheshchandra Panchal, the evidence of the prosecution case can not be said to be sufficient to inspire confidence, particularly in the present case, when the second panch-Veenaben, had also actively participated in the operation and she has not been examined. Under these circumstances, I believe that the charges of the prosecution case can not be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, solely relying upon the evidence of two Police Officers only. It is Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Thu May 22 21:30:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/681/2008 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2025 undefined true that the panch witness-Maheshbhai Solanki has supported the case of the prosecution, but, however having regard to the entire evidence at hand, it is not wise to rely upon such evidence because the said witness is a public servant selected by the complainant and when a public servant is stepping into witness box, it is necessary to note that he can be dealt with on administrative side, if he is turned hostile and if it is found that he has deliberately changed his version. Therefore, the evidence of the panch witnesses in this particular case should be believed only if the other independent witnesses are corroborating. In the instant case, some other independent persons were available to give evidence to support the case of the prosecution and that has not been done. Therefore, the evidence of the only panch witness-Maheshchandra Solanki can not be fully relied upon. The evidence of two Police Officers, Mr. Vyas as well as Mr. Sharma, can not be said to be inspiring confidence because both were serving in the department of A.C.B. and both were the members of the raiding party in a decoy trap. Particularly, when no station diary was maintained before decoy trap was arranged, when the Police Officer himself preferred to be the complainant and he recorded the Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Thu May 22 21:30:25 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/681/2008 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2025 undefined statements and prepared the Panchnama, the evidence of such witness should be viewed with extreme care. The case of the prosecution can be believed only if such evidence is supported by some independent evidence. As discussed herein above, I do not believe that the prosecution has discharged its duties to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, I believe that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused."
4. Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned APP on behalf of the State submits that merely because the panch witness were Government servants and that this is a case of decoy trap, the evidence should not have been discarded. Upon scrutinizing the material on record, I am of the opinion that the learned Trial Court had rightly concluded that the prosecution of the case of decoy trap cannot be sustained solely on the basis of the Police / Government witness particularly, when no station diary was maintained before the decoy trap was arranged and the police officer himself became the complainant and also recorded the statements and prepared the panchnama.
Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Thu May 22 21:30:25 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/681/2008 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2025 undefined
5. In such circumstances, when the decoy himself has turned hostile, the entire prosecution case has no independent legs to stand on and therefore, there is no proof beyond reasonable doubt which can be said to have been put up by the prosecution in support of its case. In such circumstances, I am in full agreement with the view taken by the learned Trial Court in acquitting the accused. Respectfully following the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of :-
(1) Babu Sahebgouda Rudragoudar and Others V/s.
State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252, and (2) In paragraph no. 42 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mallappa and Others V/s. State of Karnataka reported in (2024) 3 SCC 544, where guidelines regarding the procedure and standard of proof in appeals from acquittal have been laid down.
6. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. Notice is discharged.
7. Record and Proceedings to be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.
(D.N.RAY,J) MAYA Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu May 22 2025 Downloaded on : Thu May 22 21:30:25 IST 2025