MANIK SHRIRANG GAIKWAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal arises out of the order of conviction and sentence passed by Special Judge, Solapur, in Special Case No. 3 of 1980 convicting the present Appellant No. 1 (accused No. 1) of offence under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and as also under section 5 (1) (b) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- and an order to sentence in default of payment of fine. Appellant No. 2 (accused No. 2) is convicted for offence under section 165-A of the I. P. C. and he is also sentenced to suffer R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- together with sentence in default of payment of fine. The prosecution case has been fully stated by the lower Court in paragraphs 2 to 12 of the judgment and, hence, it is unnecessary to recount the various facts which are unfolded by the prosecution case. I will, therefore, state the prosecution case very briefly as follows :-It is useful setting out the whos of the various persons who figure in this case, as accused, as witnesses and as persons who had played some relevant role in the eventuality.

(2.) THE whos who.---Accused No. 1, appellant No. 1 before me, was the Sub-Inspector at the Pandharpur Police Station in the month of July 1979. Accused No. 2 (who is appellant No. 2 before me) was the Police Patil of Village Vale where most of the persons who figure in this case reside. The other persons who figure in this prosecution either as witnesses examined or as persons who have become conspicuous by the fact that they were not examined, are as follows :---

(3.) PROSECUTION case: Disputed part and Undisputed part.---The prosecution case may be as stated here. A large portion of it is not disputed at all. I will give indication of the disputed part and the nature of the dispute. This will narrow down the field of discussion and appreciation of evidence. As stated above, Pandurang, P. W. 1, is the resident of Vale. Hariram Varkhal (They also call him Holkar) is his distant relation. According to the prosecution, some time before 16th July, he met Pandurang and he insinuated to him something against his son in law Dagdu. The insinuation was that Dagdu was spreading a canard that Pandurang was having illicit relation with his (Dagdus) wife, meaning thereby that he (Dagdu) was maligning Harirams own daughter. Dagdu also went on saying, insinuated Hariram, that Pandurang should better swap his own wife for that of Dagdu, if he wanted to have illicit relation with Dagdus wife, Balabai. The prosecution would have us believe that Pandurang naturally took this as a character assassination and hence when, on one evening he was passing by the door of Dagdu, he went inside Dagdus house for inquiring as to why such canards were being spread by the group. Not Dagdu but Shivaji was present. Pandurang inquired of Shivaji as to why Dagdu was doing such thing. Shivaji told him to meet him on the next date at the Chavadi, which was the place fixed for the tryst, where everything would be verified and sorted out. Accordingly, contends the prosecution. Pandurang and Hariram waited for Shivaji at the Chavadi at the appointed hour. Neither Shivaji nor Dagdu, however, turned up. Shivaji Khalge, thereafter, gave an application at the Pandharpur Police Station on 18th July, 1979 alleging that Pandurang had gone to his house, completely inebriated, carrying a dagger (Jambiya) in his hand and threatening that he was going to kill Dagdu. The application was taken by H. C. Kadam, P. W. 4, and, while he was reading that application, accused No. 1 came. H. C. Kadam handed over the application to accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 read it and came out of the Police Station with Shivaji and accused No. 2 (police maintain that accused No. 2 was accompanying Shivaji), and, after some time, all of them came inside the Police Station when the application was given by accused No. 1 to Constable Abdul Aziz, P. W. 5, and, at the same time, told Shivaji that he would come to Village Vale for making inquiry in a short while. The remaining case can be gathered fully from the fulsome statement of the same made in paragraph 4 of the lower Courts judgment. In substance, the case in that on 22nd July, 1979, accused No. 1 went to Vale on a motor-bicycle, accompanied by Constable Abdul Aziz, P. W. 5, recorded the statements of the members of the family of Shivaji in relation to the facts stated in the application dated 18th July, 1979 (Exhibit 24 ). He also called Pandurang P. W. 1 to the police station, abused and scolded him severely, slapped him and kicked him with his feet with his boots on and told him that his head was swollen. Thereafter, when the recording of the statement of the members of Shivajis family was over, the Police Patil, accused No. 2 stated that the meals were ready. There is no evidence to show the menu of the meals; but it appears that it was tantalizing and mouth-watering enough to persuade even Pandurang, P. W. 1, to accompany accused Nos. 1 and 2 to the feast when he was requested by accused No. 2 to join them for the meals. In the house of accused No. 2 suggestion was made by accused No. 2 to Pandurang that accused No. 1 was an inconsiderate person and that it was better that P. W. 1 Pandurang settled the matter with him. Pandurang asked him as to what would be the settlement. Accused No. 2 asked him to wait. After the meals were over, all of them returned back to the school where the earlier scene had taken place. There accused No. 2 suggested to accused No. 1 that the letter should take some "paan supari" and settle the matter. Initially, accused No. 1 asked for Rs. 1,000/-; but P. W. 1 expressed his inability to pay Rs. 1,000/ -. Thereupon, accused No. 1 asked Gana Kotwal to bring Pandurang to the police station and the two accused and Abdul Aziz rode the motor-bike to reach Pandharpur police station. Gana Kotwal and Pandurang, P. W. 1, reached the police station on foot by about the evening time. Thereafter some haggling, the amount of the bribe was reduced of Rs. 400/ -. The amount of Rs. 50/- was paid by P. W. 1 to accused No. 2 there and then and he took time till 24th July, 1979 for payment of the balance. But, after he went to his village Vale, P. W. 1 had a second thought. He approached the Anti Corruption Department and lodged his complaint. The trap was arranged on 24th July, 1979. The currency notes of Rs. 350/- taken by P. W. 1 to the Anti Corruption people were marked and handed over to the complainant. He was asked to pay the amount to accused No. 1 upon demand being made by him in that behalf. The further story is usual one. The trap was, apparently, successful. Apparently, accused No. 1 was caught red-handed while accepting the marked notes of Rs. 350/- from P. W. 1. The usual panchanama was made. Though accused No. 2 was not caught in the trap, still, upon the complaint of P. W. 1, he was also arrested and investigation proceeded against both the accused.