The High Court of Andhra Pradesh a criminal appeal against the judgment of acquittal in which the learned judge acquitted the Accused Officer No.1 for the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and Accused Officer No.2 for the charges under Sections 7, 12 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The court ruled that the prosecution couldn't establish a clear link between AO 1 and AO 2, citing inconsistencies in PW1's actions, questioning the credibility of the tainted money recovery, and noting the lack of evidence regarding the transfer of phenolphthalein powder.
Brief Facts:
The accused officer No. 1 worked as a Sub-Inspector of the Police and accused officer No. 2 worked as a Constable in the same station and they are public servants within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act. Accused Officer 1 had demanded a bribe from a prosecution witness for which a complaint was filed before the ACB and trap proceedings were planned. During trap proceedings, PW 1 proceeded to give the bribe to AO 1, he asked to give the same to AO 2. The ACB arrested both the accused and the tainted money had prints of AO2 but not AO1. AO2's hands tested positive for phenolphthalein powder. Later, the judge took cognizance of the case and acquitted them. Thus, the present petition has been filed against the judgment.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that PW 1 supported the case of the prosecution and spoke about the demand made by AO 1 before the trap and the day of the trap and that he accepted the bribe amount through AO 2. It was further contended that Both hand fingers of AO-2 when they were subjected to chemical tests yielded a positive results and even the inner linings of his trousers also yielded positive results. It is further argued that the learned judge ordered acquittal on an erroneous appreciation of evidence just because some criminal cases were registered by AO 1 against prosecution witnesses but that does not mean that the evidence of PW 1 is to be disbelieved and the prosecution adduced sufficient evidence so as to prove the guilt.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent contended that it is clear that many cases were filed by AO 1 against prosecution witnesses for violation of law and there is every possibility for prosecution witnesses to take course against AO 1 to implicate him in a false case and one of the prosecution witnesses realised about his mistake and did not support the case of the prosecution. It is further argued that the prosecution did not establish the nexus between AO 1 and AO 2. It is further argued that AO-2 served a summons on PW.1 in connection with a criminal case and obtained his signatures and this fact was not disclosed by PW.1 during the post-trap and he admitted the same in his cross-examination and the tainted amount was not recovered from the possession of AO-2 and it was alleged to have been recovered on the ground underneath a table.
Observations of the court:
The court observed that according to the case of the prosecution, strict instructions were given to PW.1 by the trap party to act strictly in accordance with the instructions without any deviations and he had every knowledge that his hands were contacted with phenolphthalein substance prior to the so-called payment of amount to AO-2 or after payment of tainted amount. When that is the situation, he was not supposed to put his signatures on the papers, when requested by AO-2. The theory of signing summons was not introduced during the course of post-trap proceedings. In anticipation of the defence by AO-2, the amount was not recovered from his physical possession. So, the manner in which the amount was recovered from AO-2 is not believable.
The court further observed that the prosecution failed to establish a nexus between AO 1 and AO 2. Furthermore, the eyewitnesses had become hostile, and the contaminated material was purportedly found on the floor rather than on any officer's body.
The court held that PW1 failed to reveal during the post-trap proceedings that he had accepted the summons that AO2 had served him on the day of the trap. The subject was only raised during the deposition. The court concluded that the phenolphthalein powder could have moved from PW1's hands to the summons, and then to AO2's hands and pocket because PW1 acknowledged that after giving AO2 the bribe, AO2 served him with a summons, which he signed and returned to AO2, who then placed them in his right pant pocket.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: State vs. P. Ch. Ranga Reddy
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 270 OF 2008
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. S.M. Subhani
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Sreekanth Reddy Ambhati, Mr. Suresh Kumar Reddy
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
