Chattisgarh High Court

State vs Sunderlal Dhritlahre on 5 August, 2022

                                     1

                                                                      NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                            CRA No.2217 of 2000

                   Judgment reserved on : 23.06.2022

                   Judgment delivered on : 05.08.2022

      State of Madhya Pradesh through            S.   P.   Special   Police
       Establishment, Lokayukt, Raipur (C.G.)

                                                              ---- Appellant

                                  Versus

      Sunderlal Dhritlahre, S/o Ramcharan Dhritlahre, Naib Tahsildar,
       Bemitra, Tahsil Bemitra, District Durg (C.G.)

                                                            ---- Respondent

For Appellant               Mr. Lalit Jangde, Dy.G.A.
For Respondent              Mr. V. G. Tamaskar, Advocate



                    Hon'ble Justice Smt. Rajani Dubey

                                C A V Order

1. The instant appeal was received on transfer from the High Court of

Madhya Pradesh, wherein vide order dated 25.08.2000 leave to

appeal was granted and the same was registered under the head of

'criminal appeal'.

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State

challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 06.03.2000 passed by

the learned 1st Additional Special Judge in Special Criminal Case

No.2/99, whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charges

punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Sunderlal Dhritlahre

was posted as Nayab Tahsildar at District Durg in the year 1998.

The complainant Rajendra Kumar had filed an application for

mutation of his land. It is alleged that the respondent had demanded

Rs.2,000/- as bribe from the complainant for mutation of his land

and subsequently, amount of Rs.500/- was said to be given on

16.06.1998. Thereafter, the complainant reported the matter to the

Superintendent of Police (Special Police) Lokayukt, Raipur against

the respondent by filing an application (Ex-P/18). The preliminary

enquiry was done, thereafter a trap team was directed to be

constituted by the SP, Lokayukt. The tape recorder was given to

the complainant to record the conversation between him and the

respondent/accused. On 16.06.1998 at about 7 am, trap team

reached at Bemetara. The complainant Rajendra Kumar (PW-7)

was sent to the respondent's house. N. S. Thakur (PW-1), a shadow

witness, also went with him. The complainant gave Rs.500/- bribe

money to the respondent and gave indication of the same to the trap

team. The respondent was caught red handed and on search,

Rs.500/-, total 5 notes of Rs.100/- was seized from him. The

solution of sodium carbonate was prepared and on wash, the colour

of respondent's hand changed to pink. After completion of other

enquiry and procedures, charge sheet was filed against the

respondent. The charges were framed under Section 7 and 13 (1)

(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988.

4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as

many as 11 witnesses. The statement of the accused was also

recorded under Section 313 of CrPC., in which he denied the

circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case,

pleaded innocence and false implication.

5. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary

evidence available on record acquitted the respondent of the

charges punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13

(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence, this appeal has been

preferred by the appellant/State.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the learned

Special Judge is absolutely unjustified in acquitting the respondent

of the aforesaid charges levelled against him by recording a finding

perverse to the record, therefore, the impugned judgment deserves

to be set aside. The learned Trial Court has failed to see that the

complainant Rajendra Kumar had supported the prosecution on

material aspects and was declared hostile for limited purposes only.

The other prosecution witnesses have proved the seizure of money

from the possession of the respondent. The finding and conclusion

drawn by the court below is illegal, perverse and contrary to record,

hence the judgment of acquittal is liable to be set aside.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that

the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond all

reasonable doubt, as such the learned Trial Court has rightly

acquitted the respondent of the aforesaid charges levelled against,

therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

9. The learned Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary

evidence available on record found that there is no proof of demand

of bribe money by the respondent. Mr. P. L. Shrivastava (PW-5)

admitted the fact that when they entered into the house of the

respondent, one person was sitting with the respondent but the

prosecution did not examine the said person. It was found that the

prosecution did not explain anything about that person as to who

was that person and this person could have enlightened the case

and explained better as to what conversation took place between

the respondent and the complainant. P. L. Shrivastava (PW-5) also

admitted this fact that when fingers of respondent were sunk into

water, then the colour of fingers was dusky (matmaila) but not pink.

The complainant and other witnesses have stated different versions

of trap and procedures.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Muralidhar alias

Gidda and another vs State of Karnataka 1 has held in paras 11 &

12 as under:-

"11. As early as in 1952, this Court in Surajpal Singh[2] while dealing with the powers of the High Court in an appeal against acquittal under Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code observed:

"7..........the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal was founded, but it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court, and the findings of the trial court which had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence can be reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons."

12. The approach of the appellate court in the appeal against acquittal has been dealt with by this Court in Tulsiram Kanu, Madan Mohan Singh, Atley, Aher Raja Khima, Balbir Singh, M.G. Agarwal, Noor Khan, Khedu Mohton, Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade, Lekha Yadav, Khem Karan, Bishan Singh, Umedbhai Jadavbhai, K. Gopal Reddy, Tota Singh, Ram Kumar, Madan Lal, Sambasivan, Bhagwan Singh, Harijana Thirupala, C. Antony, K. Gopalakrishna, Sanjay Thakran and Chandrappa. It is not necessary to deal with these cases individually.

1 (2014) 5 SCC 730

Suffice it to say that this Court has consistently held that in dealing with appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the following:

(i) There is presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the trial court;

(ii) The accused person is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when it deals with the merit of the appeal against acquittal;

(iii) Though, the power of the appellate court in considering the appeals against acquittal are as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions but the appellate court is generally loath in disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the trial court. It is so because the trial court had an advantage of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses. If the trial court takes a reasonable view of the facts of the case, interference by the appellate court with the judgment of acquittal is not justified. Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of the appellate court in interfering with such conclusions is fully justified, and

(iv) Merely because the appellate court on re- appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view. The evenly balanced views of the evidence must not result in the interference by the appellate court in the judgment of the trial court."

11. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid

legal proposition, it is quite vivid that the prosecution had to prove

demand and acceptance of bribe by the respondent beyond all

reasonable doubt, but the prosecution has failed to prove the same.

The finding recorded by the learned Special Judge acquitting the

respondent of the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) read

with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is

based on the material available on record. As such, this Court finds

no illegality in the impugned judgment acquitting the respondent of

the aforesaid charges, particularly when there is a settled legal

position that if on the basis of record, two conclusions can be

arrived at, the one favouring the accused has to be preferred. Even