A. SOMAN Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein was a police Head Constable at the Pathanapuram Police Station in August, 2002. He faced prosecution before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, on a complaint made by one Nazeema. One Kuttan Pillai had made a criminal complaint against the said Nazeema and her paternal uncle, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Punalur, and the said complaint was forwarded to the police under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. The complaint of Nazeema is that in connection with the said case, the appellant met her at her residence and demanded an amount of Rs. 500/ -, and later, he again came to her house on 06.08.2002, and demanded an amount of Rs. 1,000/ - as illegal gratification for absolving her from the criminal liability. On 06.08.2002, her son was also there at her house when demand was made by the Head Constable. As she was not inclined to make payment of illegal gratification, she approached the Dy.S.P., VACB, Kollam, and made a complaint on 10.08.2002. On the said complaint, the VACB arranged a trap. Accordingly, Nazeema and her son, along with the trap witness, approached the accused at the Police Station on 10.08.2002 at about 12.40 PM. The Head Constable accepted Rs. 1,000/ - from Nazeema in the presence of her son and the other trap witness. Within no time, on getting signal from the complainant, the Vigilance team reached there, seized the phenolphthalein tainted currency from his possession, and arrested him on the spot. After investigation, the police submitted final report in court.

(2.) The accused appeared before the trial court and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under Ss. 7 and 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, 'the P.C. Act'). The prosecution examined seven witnesses including the defacto complainant, and proved Exts.P1 to P17 documents including Nazeema's complaint, and the prosecution sanction obtained under Sec. 19 of the P.C. Act. The material objects including the phenolphthalein tainted currency seized from the possession of the accused were also identified during trial as MO1 to MO7 series. During trial, the accused projected a defence of total denial and submitted that he was viciously trapped due to previous enmity. The accused examined one witness as DW1. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty. On conviction he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - under Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, and to undergo another term of rigorous imprisonment for two years under Sec. 7 of the P.C. Act, by judgment dated 31.12.2007 in C.C. No. 14/2004. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the accused has come up in appeal.

(3.) When this appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the whole prosecution case is suspicious, that the evidence given by the complainant and the others is not believable or acceptable, and that the Head Constable was in fact viciously trapped due to some previous enmity. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is absolutely no reason or ground to suspect the evidence given by the complainant and others, and that nobody had any reason to make any false complaint, or to adduce false evidence against the Head Constable.