Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The factual matrix sans unnecessary details in brief is that the complainant Shri Nivrutti s/o Pralhad Khairnar resident of Deogaon, Taluka Chopda, District Jalgaon, on 03-01-2012, approached to the ACB sleuth, Jalgaon and ventilated the grievances that the proposals to get Nomadic tribes Caste Certificate of his younger brother Sandeep Khairnar, cousin brother and sister, namely, Swpanil Khairnar and Ku. Swati Khairnar were submitted on 23-09-2011 in 'Seth Suvida Kendra, Tahsil Office, Chopda, District Jalgaon.' After due compliance of procedural formalities, the proposals were forwarded to concern Sub- Divisional Magistrate's office Amalner for further process. The complainant Shri Nivrutti Khairnar prior to 10/12 days of the complaint visited to the office of S.D.M. Amalner for enquiry about the proposal of caste certificate of his brothers and sister. He came to know that the proposals are pending on the table of appellant-accused Mahesh Jadhav. Therefore, he met with the accused/appellant and made enquiry. The accused disclosed to the complainant that, he will prepare and issue caste certificate of his brothers and sister, but he has to pay Rs.15,000/- for his proposal of three caste certificate. After negotiation, the accused/appellant agreed to accept Rs.10,000/- as bribe for issuance of three caste certificates of brothers and sister of complainant. It has been alleged that on 02-01-2017 in the morning hours, the appellant/ accused contacted with the complainant on his 3 CriAl-515-14-J cell phone and asked him to bring Rs. 10,000/- as decided and take the caste certificate of his brother and sister. The complainant was not ready and willing to pay bribe to the appellant-accused. Therefore, he consulted with the ACB personnel, Jalgaon and filed the complaint. The Investigating Officer, P.I. Shri Garud procured presence of two panchas. They were appraised about the demand of bribe by the accused. The panchnama of verification of demand of bribe was drawn after visiting to the accused by complainant in presence of shadow panch. The recorded conversation of demand of bribe was transcribed in the panchnama. The IO proceeded to lay trap after arrival of accused in the office as he was not available in the office for 2/3 days. It has been contended that on 09-01-2012, the complainant once again visited to the office of ACB Jalgoan and informed that he has received the phone call of accused and he called him in the office. Accordingly, IO completed the formalities of pre-trap panchnama. Thereafter the trap was laid and appellant/accused was caught raid handed while accepting the bribe amount from the complainant. The detail post trap panchnama was drawn. IO recorded statement of appellant/accused. Thereafter, he filed the report to the concern Police Station for penal action against the accused.

4. The learned counsel Shri Chatterji appearing for appellant /accused vehemently submits that the impugned Judgment and order 5 CriAl-515-14-J of conviction and resultant sentence is erroneous, illegal and contrary to provisions of Law. The learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence adduced on record in its proper perspective and committed error in convicting the accused in this case. There are material discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The learned counsel contended that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is not sufficient to prove the factum of demand of bribe by the appellant- accused. The conversation recorded in the devise for verification of demand does not disclose the demand of bribe by the accused. There were deficiencies in the caste proposal of complainant and accused asked him to bring the required documents for compliance. But, the conversation was considered as demand of bribe. He drawn the attention that there was no whisper about money transaction in the conversation recorded during course of verification of demand. The learned counsel Shri Chatterji harped on the suspicion conduct and demeanour of complainant since beginning in this case. He submits that there are material contradictions in the evidence of complainant and panch witnesses PW 2-Shri Tadavi, in regard to the vital circumstances of demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant/accused. He explained the circumstances occurred in the office of SDM at Amalner since visit of complainant and panch witnesses to the accused for caste certificate of brothers and sister of complainant. According to learned counsel, the dialogue in between PW-1 complainant and accused as well as the gesture of appellant- accused at the relevant time, if considered minutely would goes to show that appellant-accused was dealing with the complainant in 6 CriAl-515-14-J routine and causal manner without any malafide intention to extract money from the complainant. The learned counsel pointed out the events occurred during relevant period in the Office of SDM and described in detail the infirmities in the evidence of complainant and shadow panch adduced on record. The learned counsel fervidly contends that there was no demand or acceptance of bribe amount by the accused, but the complainant forcibly thrusted the tainted notes in the pant pocket of accused. The defence propounded on behalf of accused since beginning was not considered by the learned trial Court properly. He also criticized the findings expressed by the learned trial Court for conviction of the accused in this case. He raised objection for appreciation of document of call detail record (CDR) by the learned trial Court without its proof and certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. According to learned counsel, evidence of the prosecution witnesses is suspicious, incredulous and not inspire confidence. The prosecution failed to prove the charges against accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In support of argument, the learned counsel for appellant relied upon the citations in the cases of State Inspector of Police Vishakhapatnam Versus Surya Sankaram Karri reported in 2007 All MR (Cri) 555 (SC), Dr. Smt. Usha W/o Dhondiram Sarwade Versus State of Maharashtra, reported in 2011 All MR(Cri) 851, State of Maharashtra Versus Shivram s/o Bhikaji Pawar and another reported in 2011 All MR(Cri) 1173, the State of Maharashtra Versus Ashok Tukaram Gavai and another reported reported in 2012 All MR (Cri) 2894 and G.V. Nanjundiah Versus State (Delhi Administration) 7 CriAl-515-14-J

13. The aforesaid circumstances demonstrate that on 3/1/2012, when the complainant and shadow panch visited to the accused at the behest of ACB personnel, for verification of demand of bribe panchanama that time the caste proposal of complainant was under process. There were deficiencies in the proposal and complainant had to comply the same. Moreover, the complainant did not carry any 12 CriAl-515-14-J documents with him for compliance of deficiencies. In such circumstances, when the work assigned to the accused was incomplete, how it is expected that accused would make demand of money on that day by uttering words "vk.kys dk\"] "ns.kkj dk\", etc. The attending circumstances reflects that the words uttered by the accused referred above might be in regard to documents which the complainant had to bring for compliance. It was not the case that the complainant was not aware about the deficiencies of lack of validity certificates of relatives, in his proposal. In cross-examination PW-1 Nivrutti deposed that "It is correct that in case of issuing certificates of Swapanali, Swati and Sandip accused had pointed some deficiencies to be complied. It is correct that accused had informed me that Shri Chikhale, the then S.D.O. had passed remark on the file not to supply copies till compliance of the deficiencies." In view of aforesaid statement of PW-1 Nivrutti the possibility cannot be ruled out that accused might have stated about the documents for compliance on that day by saying that "whether he brought it and he would have to give it." This is also an possible view, which could be perceived from the conversation occurred on 03-01-2012 in between complainant and accused in the office. There was no direct demand of bribe nor the accused made any reference of quantum of bribe in the alleged conversation. The PW-2 Shri Tadavi Panch in cross-examination admitted that on 03-01-2012, there was no reference to the figure of amount during entire conversation. In such peculiar circumstances, when two inferences are possible from the set of evidence, the inference favouring the accused has to be accepted and in such case, it is hazardous to keep reliance 13 CriAl-515-14-J on the evidence of complainant on the question of demand of bribe allegedly made by the accused. In the result, the factum of demand of bribe by the accused appears to be suspicious dubious and incredulous one.

23. In contrast, the conduct and demeanour of accused since the inception found consistent with his innocence and inconsistent with his guilt. It is not discernable from the circumstances on record as discussed above, that accused made demand of bribe. There are clouds of doubt in the theory putforth on behalf of prosecution against accused in this case. There was no persuasive evidence available on record sufficient to draw adverse inference against the accused for demand of bribe from the complainant. In addition, probably there was no demand of bribe by the accused and therefore the complainant gave the story that accused made demand of bribe by gesture. The transcript shown in the respective documents of panchnamas cannot be accepted as substitute of the tape recording itself.