Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Madhukantaben D/O Baburao Vishwasrao ... on 15 May, 2025

                                                                                                                  NEUTRAL CITATION




                             R/CR.A/681/2008                                     ORDER DATED: 15/05/2025

                                                                                                                   undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                               R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 681 of 2008

                      ==========================================================
                                             STATE OF GUJARAT
                                                    Versus
                                 MADHUKANTABEN D/O BABURAO VISHWASRAO KADAM
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR SOAHAM JOSHI, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                      MR JM BUDDHBHATTI(1239) for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1
                      ==========================================================
                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY

                                                          Date : 15/05/2025

                                                           ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned APP for the

Appellant - State and Mr. Jiten M. Buddhbhatti, learned

advocate for the Respondent.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 The accused was serving as Assistant Sub-Inspector

in the office of Women Security Cell, situated in the

premises of the Police Commissioner of Vadodara city.

The accused has been charged with the offence U/s-7,

13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988. The offence against the accused was registered

with A.C.B. Police station, Vadodara, vide Cr. No.11/02

on 13.9.2002. The accused was arrested on 14.9.2002 and

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/681/2008 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2025

undefined

thereafter, when she was produced before the Special

Court, she had been released on bail during the

pendency of investigation as well as trial. It seems that

the investigation was concluded by the police and the

charge sheet was submitted on 22.04.2003. This Court

being a Special Court constituted under the provisions of

Prevention of Corruption Act, the matter has been taken

up for disposal according to law.

2.2 In order to understand and appreciate the case of

the prosecution, some relevant facts are required to be

noted at this juncture:

A.C.B. Police station, P.I. Mr. Indravadan

Balkrushna Vyas had received information regarding

some illegal gratification being taken by the Police

Personnel deployed in the office of the Women Security

Cell, in the premises of the Office of the Police

Commissioner, Vadodara. Such information was received

on 12.9.2002 The Police Inspector Mr. Vyas arranged for

some two persons to perform the function as the panch

witnesses. Thereafter on inquiry, it was found that one

Dulsukhbhai Khodabhai Pannar had approached the office

of the Women Security Cell in connection with the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/681/2008 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2025

undefined

matter relating to his cousin - Manjulaben. The Police

Officer consulted this person and he was persuaded to

give co-operation in a decoy trap, which was going to be

arranged by the Police Inspector. The said person -

Dalsukhbhai Khodabhai Parmar had expressed his

willingness to work as Punter (Decoy) witness and

therefore, he was taken to the office of A.C.B. Police

station, Vadodara. He was introduced to two panch

witnesses, Maheshkumar Solanki and one Veenaben

Sharma. Both were Government servants and thereafter,

the members of the raiding party as well as the office of

the A.C.B. had explained the object of the decoy trap

and thereafter, the office of the A.C.B. had produced Rs.

500/- for the purpose of use during the decoy trap. There

were four currency notes denoting value of Rs. 100/- and

two currency notes were denoting value of Rs. 50/- only.

Then, the Officers of the Police station had explained the

use of Anthracene powder and thereafter, a

demonstration and experiment was carried out. The use

and the characteristics of the Anthracene powder were

also experimented and it was stated that wherever the

Anthracene powder touches, it leaves an impression of

pink shining on that part. It was also shown that the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/681/2008 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2025

undefined

currency notes were tested with Anthracene powder and

thereafter, they were examined, under the Ultra Violet

Lamp (UV Lamp). It was found that the currency notes

were containing the fluorescence and thereafter, they

were put in the pocket of the shirt on the left side,

which was put on by the punter witness-Dalsukhbhai. He

was instructed not to touch the money unless and until

the requirement arises to give the money by way of

bribe. Thereafter, everybody, who had touched with

Anthracene powder, had washed hands and thereafter

again, they were tested under the UV Lamp and the

result was that the Anthracene powder had disappeared.

The Police Officer, thereafter, prepared the panchnama in

that regard in Part-I and they were signed by both the

panch witnesses as well as P.I. Mr. Vyas.

2.3 The raiding party had thereafter proceeded towards

the Central Jail road and the vehicle was stopped near

the S.S.G. hospital, Vadodara. Thereafter, as it was

understood, panch witness Maheshkumar Solanki had

followed the complainant as the shadow witness and rest

of the members of the raiding party were instructed to

take the position around and near the office of Women

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/681/2008 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2025

undefined

Security Cell. The Punter witness-Dalsukhbhai entered

the premises of Police Commissioner and he got two

passes issued in the name of Dalsukhbhai. Then, they

went to the office of the Women Security Cell and the

accused Madhukantaben Baburao Kadam was found

sitting in the chair of her chamber. There was one

another lady Head Constable and two other persons were

also sitting there. When the decoy witness-Dalsukhbhai

went there, a formal conversation took place between the

decoy witness and the accused. When the decoy witness

asked her to resolve the problem of his cousin sister, in

order to obtain divorce, the accused told him that the

matter was very complicated and for that, some money

was required to be given by way of illegal gratification.

The decoy witness Dalsukhbhai had paid Rs. 300/- and

thereafter, he went out of the Chamber to give a signal

by raising his two hands. On getting the signal, the

members of the raiding party rushed into the Chamber

and the P.I. Mr. Vyas as well as P.I. Mr. Rakesh

Sharma introduced themselves and also instructed the

accused not to make any movement. The panch witness-

Maheshkumar Solanki had introduced himself as the

relative of the decoy witness-Dalsukhbhai and on inquiry

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/681/2008 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2025

undefined

by the accused, he had told that he was also entangled

in the same situation in respect of his daughter. When

the Police officers entered the Chamber, the accused had

thrown the currency notes on the floor. The Police

Officers directed another panch witness- Veenaben

Sharma to collect the currency notes and thereafter, to

find out the presence of Anthracene powder on the

person and other parts of the body of the accused, a test

through U.V. Lamp was conducted. The presence of

Anthracene powder was found on the fingers and the

palm of the accused. The presence of such powder was

also found on the part of the saree wrapped around the

waist. During the course of this exercise, the police

managed another set of dress and the particular saree

containing the Anthracene powder was recovered for the

purpose of investigation. The Police Officers had en-

circled with black pen around the impression of

Anthracene powder. The Police Officers had, before

conducting such test, shown and examined their hands

under the UV Lamp to the accused with a view to

satisfy her that there was no any previous presence of

such Anthracene powder on their hands. Thereafter, the

panch witness- Veenaben Sharma was tested with U.V.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/681/2008 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2025

undefined

Lamp because she had lifted the currency notes from the

floor and her hands were also carrying the impression

and therefore, that part of the procedure was reduced in

writing during the panchnama. The numbers of currency

notes recovered on the scene of crime were compared

and verified with the numbers referred in the first part

of the panchnama and they were found to be the correct.

Thereafter, the remaining currency notes from the pocket

of the decoy witness- Dalsukhbhai were brought out of

the pocket and they were also compared with the

numbers referred in the panchnama earlier. After

completing the entire exercise, a panchnama was

prepared in second part and both the panch witnesses

had signed the documents, which were prepared in

presence of P.I. Mr. Vyas. The accused had been

arrested on the next day and produced before the Court.

It appears that the Police Inspector Mr. Vyas, thereafter,

recorded the statements of some witnesses and the

further investigation was conducted by Police Inspector,

Mr. Rakesh Sharma, with the A.C.B. Police station,

Vadodara, who thereafter submitted the charge sheet in

the Court.

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/681/2008 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2025

undefined

3. The learned Trial Court after considering the entire

evidence had recorded its reasons for acquittal as under:

"14. In the instant case, therefore, it appears that there is a decoy trap and therefore, the evidence of the complainant should be viewed with extreme care and if it is not supported by independent evidence, then, it should be believed to be a evidence of the accomplice, which ordinarily should not be given weight. In the instant case, therefore, particularly when the punter witness has not supported the case of the prosecution, when the eye witness Maheshchandra Panchal has not supported the case of the prosecution, when the prosecution has not examined two important witnesses, lady A.S.I. present in the Chamber and one Nimishaben, wife of Maheshchandra Panchal, the evidence of the prosecution case can not be said to be sufficient to inspire confidence, particularly in the present case, when the second panch-Veenaben, had also actively participated in the operation and she has not been examined. Under these circumstances, I believe that the charges of the prosecution case can not be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, solely relying upon the evidence of two Police Officers only. It is

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/681/2008 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2025

undefined

true that the panch witness-Maheshbhai Solanki has supported the case of the prosecution, but, however having regard to the entire evidence at hand, it is not wise to rely upon such evidence because the said witness is a public servant selected by the complainant and when a public servant is stepping into witness box, it is necessary to note that he can be dealt with on administrative side, if he is turned hostile and if it is found that he has deliberately changed his version. Therefore, the evidence of the panch witnesses in this particular case should be believed only if the other independent witnesses are corroborating. In the instant case, some other independent persons were available to give evidence to support the case of the prosecution and that has not been done. Therefore, the evidence of the only panch witness-Maheshchandra Solanki can not be fully relied upon. The evidence of two Police Officers, Mr. Vyas as well as Mr. Sharma, can not be said to be inspiring confidence because both were serving in the department of A.C.B. and both were the members of the raiding party in a decoy trap. Particularly, when no station diary was maintained before decoy trap was arranged, when the Police Officer himself preferred to be the complainant and he recorded the

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.A/681/2008 ORDER DATED: 15/05/2025

undefined

statements and prepared the Panchnama, the evidence of such witness should be viewed with extreme care. The case of the prosecution can be believed only if such evidence is supported by some independent evidence. As discussed herein above, I do not believe that the prosecution has discharged its duties to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, I believe that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused."

4. Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned APP on behalf of the

State submits that merely because the panch witness

were Government servants and that this is a case of

decoy trap, the evidence should not have been discarded.

Upon scrutinizing the material on record, I am of the

opinion that the learned Trial Court had rightly

concluded that the prosecution of the case of decoy trap

cannot be sustained solely on the basis of the Police /

Government witness particularly, when no station diary

was maintained before the decoy trap was arranged and

the police officer himself became the complainant and

also recorded the statements and prepared the