[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra. vs Ramnath Parasram Nirmal. on 23 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:2992
{1} CRI APPEAL 74 OF 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 74 OF 2016
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer, Shillegaon,
Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad. ... Appellant
(Orig. Complainant)
Versus
Ramnath S/o Parasram Nirmal,
Age : 50 years, Occu. : Service,
R/o. Police Station Shillegaon,
Lasur Station, Tq. Gangapur,
Dist. Aurangabad. ... Respondent
(Orig. Accused)
.....
Mr. S. G. Sangle, APP for Appellant - State
Mr. Rajendrraa S. Deshmukh, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Vishal A.
Chavan, Advocate for Respondent.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 22 JANUARY, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 23 JANUARY, 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. In this appeal by State, there is challenging to the judgment
and order of acquittal dated 04-08-2015 passed by learned Special
Judge (P. C. Act), Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad in Special Case (P.C.)
No. 12 of 2012, acquitting the accused from charge under sections 7,
13(1)(d) r/w section 13(2) of the P. C. Act.
{2} CRI APPEAL 74 OF 2016
BRIEF CASE OF PROSECUTION
2. In brief, case of prosecution is that there was quarrel between
mother of PW1 and one Dnyaneshwar Jadhav and others and so he
accompanied his mother to lodge report at Shilllegaon Police Station.
Accused, who was working as Head Constable, suggested that, if they
want strong action to be taken against another side, they would have
to pay bribe of Rs.2,000/-. When complainant told him, he had
merely Rs.1100/-, accused accepted the same and asked complainant
to bring remaining amount of Rs.900/-, however, on 11-11-2010,
complainant approached ACB office and filed complaint Exh.25, on
the basis of which, ACB authorities planned and executed trap,
apprehended the accused, charge-sheeted him and he was made to
face trial vide above sessions case and on appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence, learned trial Court was pleased to acquit the
accused. Hence, State has come up in appeal.
SUBMISSIONS
On behalf of appellant State :
3. Learned APP would point out that, prosecution had adduced
evidence of in all four witnesses. According to him, PW1 Balu and
PW3 Dattatraya, who are complainant and shadow pancha, have
testified about demand. The contents of the complaint were narrated,
{3} CRI APPEAL 74 OF 2016
however, learned APP fairly submitted that, at one point of time as
complainant was not supporting, he was subjected to cross. However
according to learned APP, the core of the prosecution case about
demand had remained intact. That, evidence of PW3 shadow panch
had also remained unshaken.
4. He further submitted that, investigating machinery after
receipt of above complaint, undertook the exercise of getting
verification done and only thereafter, main trap was laid and
executed, wherein accused had demanded bribe as well as accepted
it and on receiving signal to that extent, raiding party had
apprehended the accused with the currency and as such, it is his
submission that case of prosecution was proved beyond reasonable
doubt, but according to him, there is erroneous appreciation by
learned trial Judge.
5. It is his next submission that, here, sanction was duly obtained
to prosecute the accused. Sanctioning Authority has also been
examined and even learned trial court held so, but still there is
acquittal. According to him, it is a result of incorrect appreciation and
failure to consider the settled law. For said reasons, he urges to allow
the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment.
{4} CRI APPEAL 74 OF 2016
On behalf of Respondent Accused :
6. Per contra, learned counsel for original accused - respondent
herein would submit that, prosecution has miserably failed to bring
home the charges. He strenuously submitted that, here, there was no
corroboration to the initial demand by accused to complainant. He
submitted that complainant and shadow pancha are not consistent.
According to him, at the outset, demand itself has not been proved
and therefore, even further case of acceptance and recover itself get
knocked at the bottom. On this count, he took this court through the
evidence of PW1 complainant and PW3 shadow panch and their cross
examinations.
7. He next pointed out that, though complainant claimed that
there was demand and acceptance, but independent witness like
shadow pancha, according to him, has categorically answered in
cross that he was not party to the alleged conversation of demand.
Therefore, he would submit that prosecution has miserably failed to
prove the very demand and taking recourse to the judgments cited,
he justifies the order of acquittal and prays to dismiss the appeal for
want of merits.
{5} CRI APPEAL 74 OF 2016
ANALYSIS
8. In the backdrop of above submissions, evidence is put to
scrutiny and re-appreciated.
PW1 Balu seems to be complainant and he is examined at
Exh.24. As per his complaint, he has narrated that, for taking action
against opposite party, accused, who was a Police Constable,
demanded Rs.2,000/- and he made upfront payment of Rs.1100/-
and agreed to pay remaining Rs.900/- later on, but instead as he was
not willing to pay bribe, he lodged complaint Exh.25. He also
deposed about Investigating Officer making him and pancha carry
tape recorder for recording the conversation of demand so as to
verify about it. The events which took place after approaching
accused are narrated in paragraph 7, wherein he has stated that
accused came on motorcycle, there were talks between him and
accused about work and accused allegedly asked him whether he had
made arrangement of money of Rs.900/- and when he affirmed
about it, this witness states that accused refused to accept it asking
him to come near xerox center and there again accused demanded
money which was offered, and accepted and pocketed by the accused
followed by relay of signal. However, while under cross, complainant
{6} CRI APPEAL 74 OF 2016
has admitted that he had not heard the conversation between him
and accused, which was recorded on tape recorder and of which
panchanama was drawn. He is unable to state whether at the time of
apprehension, accused was in uniform and what the nature of clothes
which were on his person.
9. PW3 Dattatraya is the shadow pancha, who is examined at
Exh.42. In his testimony he deposed about tape recorder arranged
and given to PW1 and to be used at the time of demand and payment
of bribe. Then he stated that when they approached accused in the
police station, PW1 telephonically contacted accused and at that
time, tape recorder was put on and complainant said to accused that
they had come to police station, but accused from the other side
allegedly informed that he was on leave and that he would come
next day. Apparently, thus during conversation between complainant
and accused in presence of this witness PW3 shadow panch,
apparently there was no demand. While further facing in
examination in chief, in paragraph 4, narrating about pre-trap
panchanama, this witness has stated that he could not hear very
conversation between complainant and accused as he was at some
distance from them.
{7} CRI APPEAL 74 OF 2016
Therefore, as pointed out that there is no corroboration
to the tesimony of complainant on the point of demand. Further this
witness, who is crucial witness, engaged for lending corroboration to
testimony of complainant, as was not supporting to the prosecution,
was on permission cross examined by learned APP, but he again
answered that he did not hear the conversation. Consequently, PW3
shadow panch seems to have resiled and not supported prosecution
case.
10. Further as pointed out, though it is a prosecution case that
prior to the main trap, verification of demand got done, evidence of
PW1 complainant itself is silent about any such exercise as he directly
deposed about main trap.
11. Though efforts of recording conversation of demand between
complainant and accused were done, such electronic equipment was
not before the court.
Further, even if there is valid sanction and though witness who
accorded sanction, is examined, as held by trial court, here very
crucial aspect of demand of bribe itself having come under shadow of
doubt, case of prosecution is rendered doubtful. Law is fairly settled
{8} CRI APPEAL 74 OF 2016
that unless demand of bribe or illegal gratification is proved, further
story of prosecution about acceptance is rendered valueless. On this
point the citation relied by learned counsel for respondent fairly
applicable.
12. Learned counsel for respondent has specifically pointed out
that Investigation machinery has not seized the very shirt of accused
at the time of main trap in the pocket of which tainted currency was
allegedly kept. Investigation Officer admits to that extent. Therefore,
failure of Investigation machinery to place and play before the trial
court the very tape recorder conversation as well as failure to seize
the shirt of accused, demonstrates the casual attitude on the part of
Investigation machinery while investigating a case of bribe.
13. Perused the judgment under challenge. It is noticed that
learned trial court has evaluated the evidence of all four witnesses
and has also tested the cross faced by these witnesses. Only on
complete evaluation of substantive evidence, findings regarding
failure of prosecution to prove the its case beyond reasonable doubt
has been recorded. The view taken by trial court is the possible view
view that could emerge even on re-appreciation.
{9} CRI APPEAL 74 OF 2016
14. For above reason, indeed it is a fit case of extension of
benefit of doubt to the accused. There being no merits, appeal
deserves to dismissed. Accordingly, following order is passed :
ORDER
Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
SPT
