SMT. MEENA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 12

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A.S. ANAND, R.C. LAHOTI, DORAISWAMY RAJU

Judgment text

SMT. MEENA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA APRIL 17, 2000 [DR. A. S. : ANAND, CJI, R. C. LAHOTI AND DORAISWAMYRAJU, JJ. ] '> harass the appellant since the staff in the Collectorate, particularly PW-3, did not like the appellant to be in the Collectorate aiid that they were offended on account of the refusal of the appellant to participate in the periodical liquor parties held by them by making contribution, as desired. Finally, it was submitted that the materials on record are not safe to be relied upon or sufficient in law to condemn the appellant of the offences of the nature levelled against her. The learned counsel for the respondent-State, while strongly placing reliance upon the judgments of the courts below, contended that the concurrent findings of the courts below, recorded on a proper appreciation of the evidence, do . :iot suffer from any infirmities or irregularities, to call for an interference in tl1is appeal and that, therefore, the appeal does not merit our acceptance.

Our attention has been drawn to such findings of the trial comt, ', which were in extenso quoted and approved by the learned judge in the High Court also, in support of his stand. )I(_ The essential ingredients to be established to indict a person of an offence under Section 5(l)(d) of the Act are that he should have been a public servant; that he should have used conupt or illegal means or othe1wise abused his position as such public servant, and that he should have obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or any other person. Likewise, .... Section 161, IPC, requires that the person-accepting the gratification should be a public servant; that he should accept the gratification for himself and the --y gratification should be as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official function, favour or disfavour to any person.

Like any other criminal offence, fue prosecution has to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt and accused should be considered innocent, till it is established otherwise by proper proof ,... l · of acceptance of the illegal gratification, the vital ingredient, necessary to be established to procure a conviction for the offences under consideration. We have bestowed our careful thought to the submissions made on either side, in the light of the evidence on record. We are of the view that neither the quality of the materials produced nor their proper evaluation could, in this case, be held sufficient to convince or satisfy the judicial conscience ~ of any adjudicating Authority to record a verdict of guilt, on such slender evidence. Indisputably, the currency note in question was not recovered from the person or from the table drawer, but when the trap party arrived was found only on the pad on the table and seized from that place only.

The question is as to whether the appellant accepted it and placed it on the table or that the currency note fell on the pad on the table in the process of the appellant refusing to receive the same by pushing away the hands of PW-I and the currency, when attempted to be tluust into her hands. PW-2, one of the panch witnesses, who accompanied PW-I, as a shadow witness, when he tried to give the bribe, did not support the prosecution case. He has been treated hostile and his evidence eschewed from consideration by the courts below. The lady Constable, Victmia, another shadow witness, who first arrived on the spot after the signal was given by PW-I, was not examined at the trial. Law has alwa;s favoured the presence and importance of a shadow witness in the trap party, not only to facilitate such witness to see but also overhear what happens and how it happens also.

In this case, the role of Victoria was to enter first and hold the hands of the accused immediately after the acceptance of the bribe amount and she was stated to have done that, as planned. For reasons best known, such a vital and important witness has been withheld by the prosecution, from being examined. Jagdish Bokade, who scribed the application dated 13. 8. 1986 for getting copies and who admittedly was all alongwith PW-I and gave even tl1e idea of lodging a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau, has also been witllheld from being examined. The other person, who was present at tl1e place of occurrence though cited initially as witness, was not examined by tlle prosecution but later was got examined as DW-1 and evidence of tllis person completely belies tlle prosecution story. TI1e cotToboration essential in a case like tllis for what actually transpired at tlle time of .... ,.. the alleged occmrence and acceptance of bribe is very much wanting in this ,... case.

Even tl1e other panch witness, PW-5, categorically admitted that even as the Inspector of Police, PW-6, arrived, the appellant gave tlle same version that PW-I tried to force into her hands the currency note which she turned down by pushing it away, and his evidence also does not lend credibility to the case of the prosecution. The contradictory version of PW-I of the very incident when earlier examined in departmental proceedings renders his testimony in this case untrustworthy. PW-3, the Head Copyist, seems to be the brain behind all these and that PW-I as well as Jagdish Bokade appear to be working as a group in this &ffair and despite the blunt denial by PW-3, his closeness to PW-I and Jagdish Bokade stand well substantiated. All these relevant aspects of the case seem to have been completely overlooked by the courts below.

The learned-Judge in the High Court seems to have mechanically affixed his approval to the findings recorded by the trial Judge by profusel~xtracting such findings. Mere recovery of the cun-ency note of Rs. 20 denomination, and that too lying on the pad on the table, by itself cannot be held to be proper or sufficient proof of the acceptance of the bribe, in the peculiar circumstances of this case which lend also credence to the case of the appellant that it fell on the table in the process of the appellant pushing it away with her hands . when attempted to be tluust into her hands by PW-I. The results of phenolphtl1alein test, viewed in the context that the appellant could have also come into contact with the. Cllffency note when she pushed it away with her hands cannot by itself be considered to be of any relevance to prove that the appellant really accepted the bribe amount.

With such perfunctmy nature of materials and the prevaricating type of evidence of PW- 1 and PW-3, who seem to have strong prejudice against the appellant, it would be not only unsafe but dangerous to rest conviction upon tlieir testimony. PW-I, if really was keen on getting the copy of the record urgently, could have made an urgent application to have them delivered within 3 days instead of making an ordinary application and going on such an eITand, which makes it even reasonable to assume that the trio of PW-1, PW- 3 and Jagdish Bokade were attempting to weave a web around the appellant to somehow get her into trouble and victimise her. 111e fact that the judgments of tlie courts below were rendered concurrently cannot dissuade us from interfering in a case like this where such findings and conviction have been recorded on mere conjectures and erratic evaluation of the evidence on record. Consistency for the mere sake of it is --..... -no virtue.

It is an obligation ofjudicial conscience to correct errors, where the same are manifest. The judgments of the courts below suffer from serious infirmities and manifest e1rnrs on account of unwarranted inferences liberally drawn by the courts below against the appellant, overlooking the fundamental __1. principle of preswnption of innocence of an accused till the charge levelled A and his guilt is established beyond all reasonable doubt. The courts below have failed to consider the adverse impact on the prosecution case from the evidence of PW-2 and the withholding of the lady Constable and Jagdish Bokade, two ma~erial witnesses. The appellant cannot be, on the basis of available evidence, held to have tacitly accepted the illegal gratification as alleged. The materials on rec:;ord in this case are not sufficient to bring home the guilt ofthe appellant. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.

The conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside and the fine, if any, paid shall be refunded to the appellant. R. A. Appeal allowed. c -·