STATE OF M P Vs. JAGDISH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was preferred by the State of M.P. against the acquittal of two Police Constables charged for an offence u/s. 161 I.P.C. and Section 51(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. During the pendency of the appeal accused/respondent/Devida sb Pundalik Patil died and his name was deleted from the appeal memo. The appeal is now to be considered only against the acquittal of respondent/Jagdish Prasad Tiwari. It was alleged by the prosecution that complainant Maheshkumar had a quarrel with one Rajendra Kumar. Respondents/Jagdish and Devidas went to the restaurant run by the complainant and told him that according to the medical report received by the Police, Rajendrakumar was assaulted with knife and because of this they would put the complainant being the bars. The respondents then demanded Rs. 100/for giving a final report in the case and to save the complainant from arrest. The complainant promised to arrange for the amount within 4-5 days and pay it to the respondents. It was said that Budhia and Shankar were present at the time of this talk. It was further alleged that the respondents again went to the restaurant of complainant Maheshkumar in the presence of Budhia and Shankar and threatened the complainant that if the money was not paid, they would put the complainant behind the bar on the same day. The complainant promised to pay the amount between 12 noon to 3 p.m. on the next day. Devidas said this time that Jagdishprasad alone would come on the next day and he should be paid Rs. 100/-which they would share. The complainant reported the matter to vigilence cell of the Special Police Establishment and Inspector Vyas was deputed for taking necessary steps. He called Dy. Collector Shri Guglia and arranged for a trap. The currency notes ofthe denominations of Rs. 50/- duly quoted with hpenolphthelene powder were handed over to the complainant for being given to the respondents. Punchnama were prepared and the trap party also went to the spot taking their positions. Jagdish Prasad arrived on the spot and complainant Maheshkumar handed over the currency notes to him, Jagdishprasad kept the notes in his money purse and put it in the pocket of the shirt. At that time the trap party pounced upon him and he was caught. On Jagdishprasads hands being washed in the solution of sodium chloride it turned pink. The currency notes identified by their serial numbers were found in possession of Jagdishprasad. He was then prosecuted. On trial they were acquitted by the Special Judge, Indore. Against this acquittal the present appeal is filed by the State.

(2.) The prosecution examined complainant Maheshkumar (P.W. 1) Vithhal Rao, Constable (P.W. 2), Shankar (P.W. 4), Bhudhia (P.W. 3), Baburao Gorkhade, Constable (P. W. 5), Jeetsingh (P.W. 6), S. Guglia (P.W. 7), Bhaskar Jugade (P.W. 8), Ravishankar Shukla (P.W. 9), Ram Gopal Chouhan (P.W. 10), Niranjan Prasad Vyas (P.W. 11) Inspector in support of its case. (P.W. 8) Bhaskar Jugade has been examined to prove the sanction to prosecute. (P.W. 9) Ravishankar Shukla has been examined to prove the F.I.R.; P.W. 10 Ramgopal Chouhan was examined to prove the record of service and postings of the accused persons. These witnesses have no direct connection with the trap as such. All other witnesses were said to be present at the time of the incident. Complainant Maheshkumars statement is full of preverications. He could not state specifically as to whether the money purse had already been taken out by the accused Jagdishprasad from his pocket or it was lying on the table before him. As regards his facing charge u/s. 420 I.P.C. also he has made contradictory statements. P.W. 2 Vithhal Rao was a constable on the establishment of Special Police Establishment, Indore. He was member of the Trap Party. He has admitted that his statement before the police was recorded the next day of the incident though he was till 6 0 clock in the evening in his office. P.W. 3 Budhia is an independent witness present on the spot. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that accused Devidas had come alone the second time and demanded money from Maheshkumar. Whereas Complainant Maheshkumar had stated that both of them had come and both of them had demanded money. P.W.3 Budhia has assigned the prime role in the offence to Devidas, head constable whereas the complainant had not done so. This witness has also stated that Inspector Vyas had taken out notes from the pocket of Jagdish Prasad. Whereas the complainant had stated that notes were taken out by Dy. Collector Guglia. This witness had also contradicted himself on the point whether both the accused person had come together or not. He has changed his stand several times. P.W. 4 Shankar, the other independent witness had turned hostile. He did not support the prosecution case. He has denied the entire prosecution story and has even denied that he ever worked in the restaurant of the complainant Maheshkumar. P.W. 5 Baburao is also a constable and was a member of the trap party. Nothing of any consequence has come in his statement. P.W. 6 Jeetsingh one of the independent witnesses of punchnama also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. The other witnesses supported the prosecution case.

(3.) The trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence on record and has found the prosecution story untrustworthy in view of the contradictions in the statements of complainant Maheshkumar and Buthia. The court has found that the complainant Maheshkumar has himself in para 21 of his cross-examination stated that on the date of the incident when he reached his restatrant with the trap party around 1 p.m. his servant Shankar was alone sitting there and there were 8-10 customers in the restaurant. Accused Jagdishprasad came on the spot, had no talk with the complainant. Jagdishprasad took tea and sat there for half an hour. During which period the complainant attended his other customers. The complainant Maheshkumar thought that Jagdishprasad was annoyed because of the case relating to the Bank and, therefore, he had tendered two currency notes of Rs. 50/-. He then makes a statement that Jagdish had taken out his money purse from his pocket for paying the bill for the tea. All this showed that the demand for bribe was not proved. The trial court has also noted several other contradictions in the statement of the witnesses. Because of these contradictions the trial court found the prosecution story not proved beyond doubt.