STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SHASHIKANT DNYANU JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Constitutional bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Neeraj Dutta v/s. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi),2023 SCC OnLine SC 280 held "in a case under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act the Court can base its conviction on circumstantial evidence, even though direct evidence is not available". So to say, if for any reason, the de-facto Complainant is not available for giving evidence, Court can certainly look for circumstantial evidence. It may be in the form of evidence of trap witness or any other witness. The de-facto Complainant may be dead or not available or has not supported the prosecution case. The reference was made to larger bench in view of divergence of opinion amongst various benches of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. After taking conspectus of the decision, certain principles were laid down. Following are relevant for our consideration:-

(2.) According to learned APP in this case, even though the de-facto Complainant has turned hostile, still there is evidence of PW No. 2- panch witness and it is sufficient. According to him, the trial Court, while acquitting the Respondent, has not at all referred the evidence of panch witness. And this is total dereliction of duty. He is right.

(3.) I have read the impugned judgment. Nowhere the trial Court has commented on the evidence of panch witness. It is true when the trial Court passed the impugned judgment, the observations in Neeraj Dutta (cited supra) were not in force. But it does not mean that, the trial Court should overlook a piece of evidence.