LAWS(CHH)-2021-5-6

YADORAM BANOTE Vs. STATE OF M P

Decided On May 28, 2021
Yadoram Banote Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 2.8.1999 passed by the Special Judge, Raipur in Special Case No.101 of 1991, whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

(2.) Case of the prosecution is that at the relevant time, the Appellant was posted as a Patwari. Complainant Hamir Rao (PW2) wanted a copy of record of certain land recorded in the name of Surtiram. After death of Surtiram, the land was recorded in the name of elder brother of father of Complainant Hamir Rao. Hamir Rao submitted an application for obtaining a copy of the said record before the Tahsildar upon which the Tahsildar directed the Appellant to give the copy sought by Hamir Rao. At that time, the Appellant was posted as Patwari at Halka No.19. Hamir Rao requested the Appellant to give him the copy. Allegedly, the Appellant demanded a sum of Rs.100 from Complainant Hamir Rao for supplying him the desired copy and the Appellant told Hamir Rao that he should bring the money on 30.10.1986. Hamir Rao did not want to give the bribe to the Appellant and, therefore, he went to Raipur and submitted written complaint (Ex.P3) to the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta. The Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta directed B.D. Dhananjay (PW12), Inspector, Lokayukta to inquire into the matter. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 30.10.1986, Complainant Hamir Rao went to the bungalow of the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Raipur, where Inspector B.D. Dhananjay (PW12) was also present. L.P. Tamboli (PW10), Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Department and H.B. Singh, Superintendent of Land Records (not examined by the prosecution) were called as panch witnesses. They verified the complaint from Complainant Hamir Rao. Hamir Rao produced 2 currency notes each of Rs.50 for trap proceeding. Their numbers were noted and they were smeared with phenolphthelin powder. On completion of other formalities, a trap party went to Village Biharikala. Complainant Hamir Rao was asked to go to the house of the Appellant. He went to the house. At that time, the Appellant was sitting in the courtyard of his house. Allegedly, the Appellant demanded the bribe money from Complainant Hamir Rao. Hamir Rao gave him the tainted money. Thereafter, Hamir Rao came out of the house of the Appellant and gave a signal to the trap party. On getting the signal, members of the trap party reached to the spot and caught hold hands of the Appellant. Hands of the Appellant were washed into a solution of sodium carbonate on which colour of the solution turned into pink. Pocket of the shirt of the Appellant was searched, but no currency note was found therein. The shirt of the Appellant was dipped into a solution of sodium carbonate on which colour of the solution turned into pink. On being inquired, the Appellant told that the currency notes were given by him to Dayalal (PW4). Thereafter, Dayalal (PW4) was called on the spot. His fingers were washed in a solution of sodium carbonate on which colour of the solution turned into pink. He took out the tainted money from the pocket of his shirt and handed over the same to the trap party. On being dipped the said tainted currency notes into a solution of sodium carbonate, colour of the solution turned into pink. On being dipped the shirt of Dayalal (PW4) into a solution of sodium carbonate, colour of the solution turned into pink. On completion of other essential formalities, Dehati Nalishi was recorded on the spot. Thereafter, on the basis of said Dehati Nalishi, First Information Report (Ex.P14) was registered. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The Trial Court framed charges.

(3.) To bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statement of the Appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the guilt, pleaded innocence and false implication. It was the defence of the Appellant that since the Tahsildar had endorsed in the application of the Complainant that the desired copy be supplied after obtaining consent from the recorded Bhumi-Swami, the Appellant told the Complainant that he will supply him the copy after obtaining consent from the recorded Bhumi-Swami and, therefore, at that time, he refused to provide the desired copy to the Complainant. On this, the Complainant told the Appellant that he had come with a sum of Rs.100, but again he refused to provide him the desired copy. Thereafter, the Complainant forcibly put sum of Rs.100 in the pocket of his shirt. He took out that money from his pocket and threw away. Thereafter, the Complainant returned from the spot. At that time, Dayalal (PW4) reached there. On being asked by Dayalal (PW4), the Appellant narrated him the entire story and requested him to refund the said money to the Complainant. On this, Dayalal (PW4) took the said money and went out from there. The Appellant neither demanded bribe from the Complainant nor did he voluntarily accept the same as bribe. In his defence, the Appellant examined two witnesses, namely, Krishna Kumar as DW1 and Paltan as DW2.