Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The trial Court however disbelieved the defence and convicted the accused, as stated above, and hence this appeal.

6. It was contended by the Counsel for the appellant that this was a case of false implication due to enmity between the office bearers of Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarathi Parishad (ABVP) on one side and the accused on the other side. According to him, the PRO Mukund Pawar (P.W. 5) and Gadnkush (P.W.3) respectively were also on enemical terms with the accused because of the union rivalry. Secondly according to him the defence that he has been falsely impiicated at the instance of ABVP was clearly borne out by the record because P.W 5 in his cross-examination has admitted that soon after the police i.e. I.O. Shrotri entered the room of the PRO along with other officers and panchas, the office bearers of All Indian Students Association, namely Rajesh Deshmukh and Milind Lele entered the cabin along with 10-12 members of the said Association and amongst them reporter from Tarun Bharat was also present. This admission on the part of the P.W. 5 according to the counsel for the accused clearly shows that the trap against the accused was led at the instance of All India Students Association and that the accused was falsely implicated in the case.

9. The earlier part regarding the demand has to be equally proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and at this juncture this Court will have to consider the evidence of the prosecution as well as the defence of the accused that because of enmity between the two Unions he has been falsely implicated. In fact, this aspect has been rightly and properly considered by the trial Court and however this being the first appeal it will not be necessary to consider those submissions again.

10. It can be said from the material that has come on record that office bearers of All India Students Association were present, immediately after the raiding party entered the cabin of PRO. It is also clear that the newspaper reporter from Tarun Bharat was also present. P.W. 5 has given some admissions that there were two Unions in the University, one was headed by the accused and the other was represented by ABVP. However, so far as this aspect is concerned the defence is not consistent, in certain suggestions put to P.W. 2 the important witness of the prosecution, it is alleged that he is in tow with ABVP. Similar suggestions are given to other witnesses. However, when PRO P.W. 5 was under cross-examination the suggestion that was given to him is that about 10-12 member of All India Students Association entered his cabin. Now, so far this Court is concerned it has to go by the record only and as per the suggestions and specific names given in those suggestions ABVP and All India Students Association cannot be termed as one and same association. Therefore, it is clear that the accused is not certain and sure about his defence i.e. whether he was having enmity with ABVP or with All India Students Association. In ordinary circumstances this may not be considered as a material aspect of the matter but since the entire defence of the accused is based upon his being a member of scheduled caste and being a leader of the association representing the persons belonging to Pune University, he should have come with a specific case of enmity and there should have been consistency in his defence. However, this may not be a ground to refuse to consider the defence raised by the accused.

12. In this regard, Counsel for the accused tried to contend that in the form that was submitted by P.W. 1 he has given particular address, which was the address of the office of ABVP. Even this circumstance cannot be used in favour of the accused because admittedly P.W. 1 is a student from Andhra Pradesh if seeks admission for Pune University in Pune itself then he has to give some local address and therefore merely because the address given by P.W. 1 happens to be the address of ABVP, it cannot be said that P. W. 1 shared the intention of the office bearers of ABVP to trap the accused in a case like corruption. At least nothing in this regard is brought on record.

13. Therefore, it is clear that P.W. 1 had nothing to do with the so-called enmity between the accused or his union on one side and ABVP or All India Students Association on the other side. There is nothing to show that P.W. 1 who has come to Pune few days before the trap had shared the intention of the office bearers of the ABVP or All India Students Association to hold any trap against the accused in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

14. Therefore, this P.W. 1 is having no concern with the Association or ABVP gives strong credence to his testimony that it was the accused who demanded Rs. 2,000/- for giving P.W. 1 admission to M.B.A. Course.