POPAT SHANKAR SONAWANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant. who at the relevant time, was a Police Head Constable posted at Peth Police Station, District Nasik, was alleged to have demanded a sum of Rs. 400/ - as illegal gratification from one Laxman Hari Kadale in the third week of August 1984. A quarrel had taken place in the village and Kadale was the complainant and the prosecution alleges that the accused is supposed to have assured him that he would arrest all the 12 persons against whom Kadale had a complaint and that he would also make the case very strong if he was paid the amount of Rs. 400/ -. Kadale being a poor villager and an illiterate person, he is alleged to have parted with a sum of Rs. 20/ - on 28 -4 -1984 and promised to bring the sum of Rs. 200/ - on 30 -8 -1984. He went to the Anti -Corruption Authorities and complained to them on 29 -8 -1984, pursuant to which a trap was arranged. On the evening of 30 -8 -1984. Kadale along with the panch Bhikha Bendkuli were both sent to the accused with the usual instructions that the money should be paid only if the accused demands the same and that a signal should be given. Accordingly, Kadale and the panch went to the police station, to the house of the accused and to several other places in search of him and finally, located him near the S. T. Stand from there, the three of them came back to the Police Station and Kadale alleges that he handed over the amount of Rs. 200/ - to the accused who asked him whether he had brought the money and thereafter gave the necessary signal. The raiding party thereafter caught hold of the accused and they are alleged to have recovered the amount of Rs. 200/ - from his left trouser pocket. On checking with a torch, signs of anthracene powder were noticed on the hands of the accused and on his clothes. The accused was placed under arrest, the investigations completed and a complaint filed before the Special Court. The learned Special Judge, Nasik, on a consideration of the evidence, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded him a sentence of R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ - in default R.I. for three months under each head of charge, substantive sentences to run concurrently. The present appeal has been directed against this order.

(2.) MR . Rajiv Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has taken me through the prosecution evidence with a degree of meticulousness. His first submission is that the complainant Kadale has wrongly involved the appellant. He submits that merely because the complainant happens to be an illiterate villager coming from the poorer strata, the Court should not ipso facto accept his evidence as the learned trial Judge has done, because he was able to demonstrate to me that the evidence is not only inconsistent but there are material contradictions in it. Mr. Patil, while analysing this evidence, stated that admittedly, a serious incident had taken place in the village wherein one of the associates of the complainant had landed up in the hospital. The complainant had, therefore, gone to the police authorities and it is rather unfortunate that on each occasion, he had to travel a long distance on foot. The procedures such as panchnama, attachment of clothes, recording of statements, etc., were undoubtedly troublesome and the incident not being one of much seriousness vis -a -vis the police in so far as the injuries were not serious, Kadale has been asked to produce the different witnesses. Obviously, he was boiling with rage and was overanxious that as many as 12 people should be implicated in the incident, whether it is justified or not. Mr. Patil points out, that the complainant had gone through the P.S.I. and not through the accused. That this was in a case where the police had refused to act because a crime had been registered and, therefore, the role of the accused was minimal. Under these circumstances, the whole story put forward that the accused was to strengthen the case does give rise to some degree of doubt as to what exactly the correct state of affairs was. Mr. Patil then illustrates that in the present case, the complainant Kadale is alleged to have virtually gone around the town in circles on the evening of 30 -8 -1984 until they found the accused. They had no other business on that day except to hand over the money to the accused as directed by the A.C.B. authorities and it is, therefore, quite surprising that after meeting the accused at the S. T. Stand, that they would ask him to come all the way back to the police station only for this purpose. On the contrary, the evidence itself discloses that the accused went back to the police station, asked about the witnesses etc., and that he had gone there in connection with Kadale's complaint. Mr. Patil then demostrates that the panch in the present case was supposed to be a peon from the Zilla Parishad office. Why the A.C.B. could not have secured the services of a person of a higher designation for an important function of the present type, one does not know. The panch who is P.W.2 had almost turned hostile by stating that the panchnama was written out by the police and thereafter certain particulars filled in and his signature obtained. His evidence is also rather patchy and under normal circumstances, where the panch should corroborate the complainant, Mr. Patil points out that this panch has not only weakened but destroyed the complainant's evidence. The sum total of the deposition of these two witnesses which is all that the prosecution has to rely on, does not inspire any confidence in the mind of the Court is the last submission of the learned counsel.

(3.) MR . Palekar, the learned A.P.P. has stoutly defended these two witnesses. He states that Laxman is an illiterate poor villager but in spite of that, he has given evidence which is sufficiently forthright and the infirmities pointed out are but natural, according to Mr. Palekar, he states that the evidence of P.W.2, the panch is quite satisfactory on all material points and that the Court should make allowances for the few blemishes that do appear. It is the endeavour of the learned A.P.P. to point out, that this material is good enough to sustain a conviction because, on the main point regarding the evidence concerning the trap, the two witnesses corroborate each other.