JAGANNATH MARUTI GADHAVE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.Sonavane, learned counsel for the appellants.

(2.) THIS appeal was filed by the original appellant-accused against the order of conviction and sentence dated 31.1.1990, passed by the learned Special Judge, Thane in Special Case No.4 of 1985, convicting the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under sections 161 of I.P.C. and under Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- i.d. R.I. for 3 months for offence punishable u/s. 161 of I.P.C. and also to suffer R.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- i.d. R.I. for 3 months for offence punishable u/s. 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) HAVING gone through the record and proceedings of this case, this is a very absurd order of conviction. There is nothing in the prosecution evidence that Vishwanath, the complainant, has been supported by the panch witnesses. The conviction recorded by the learned Judge is relied on the sole evidence of the complainant Vishwanath who is highly interested witness. Having gone through the record and prosecution evidence, it appears that the complainant has not come with clean hands as he is dealing in liquor business. It appears that at the relevant time, the appellant- accused (since deceased) was a police constable and as he was not favouring to the complainant in his illegal activities, the complainant involved the deceased appellant-accused in this case. The learned Judge has relied on the evidence of the complainant alone and no other witness including the panchas have supported the complainant. Even they were not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the deceased appellant-accused beyond doubt and he is entitled for the benefit of doubt.