Date of judgment:
December 18, 2020
Judges:
K.R. Sriram, J.
Parties:
Appellant: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Respondent: RAMESH YESHWANT BASTE
Subject
Power of the Appellate court under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to review the order of the trial courts which are under appeal before the HC.
Overview
- One Vijay Shankar Dube who was working as a social worker and union leader and Director of the Savdhan Group had launched a movement against unauthorized constructions by slumlords in Mumbai.
- He was physically assaulted by 4 unknown persons and lodged a complaint under Sections 324 and 114 of IPC with the Accused-1 under who was working as Asstt. Inspector of Police at Sakinaka, Police Station, and even after repetitive visits to the police station, the police took no steps.
- According to the complainant when he reached the police station on 22-11-1993 and enquired about the arrests, he alleged that Accused-1 asked him to give him Rs.2500/- as a bribe to arrest those who had attacked him and again when he visited the police station on 24th, the accused- 1 again asked about the money and after negotiation, the amount was reduced.
- The complainant reluctantly decided to pay the amount of Rs2000 and decided to lodge a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau against the Asstt. Inspector of Police.
- ACB police officer registered the complaint under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and set up a trap with the complainant to catch the accused.
- The complainant with one other person approached the police station where accused 1 enquired about the money and received a positive response after which he took both people to another building which was the office of BSES and there was accused no. 2 who was the officer of BSES.
- According to the prosecution, the accused no.1 entered the cabin of accused no.2 and asked the complainant Vijay Shankar Dube to hand the money to the BSES officer as it was their regular practice.
- On the signal of the complainant, the ACB officers raided the cabin of accused no.2 and they apprehended both the accused by holding their wrists after which post trap panchnama was prepared, FIR was lodged, the investigation started and the charge sheet was filed in the Special Court against both accused.
- The court of Special Judge, Greater Bombay acquitted accused no.1 and accused no.2 and the appeal is against the order of acquittal of accused no 1 before the Bombay High Court.
Judgment Analysis
- The court noted that the evidence by the Complainant (P.W.2) during his deposition did not match the statements in F.I.R because in the deposition the complainant talks about a constable who demanded the bribe whereas in the FIR, the accused no.1 was said to have demanded bribe and therefore the evidence of P.W. 2 required more credibility.
- The court also observed that since the P.W. 2 was fighting illegal and corrupt practices in the society and claimed to be a social worker, then why did he not inform the accused no.1 about the demand of bribe by the constable because in his evidence he mentioned that the demand was made by the constable.
- The court considered the question of whether the demand made by the accused no.1 and the receipt by accuse no.2 was pursuant to that demand.
- The court observed that the incident took place in two different spots, the demand was made outside the building of the police station where accused no.1 was sitting and further in the cabin of accused no.2 in the BSES office.
- The court took note of contradictions between the evidence of prosecution witnesses 1,2, 3, and 5 and the statements of cross-examination and also observed that there was no evidence to show that the accused.no 2 had any previous knowledge of demand of money by accused no.1 and the money he accepted was on behalf of accused no.1.
- The court was of the opinion the impugned order of the Trial Court did not require any interference.
- The court laid down the principle that the appellate court has a wide power to review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
- The court said due consideration should be given to the judgment of the trial court especially when witness’s credibility is in question and the HC need not take a different view of the evidence and hold the order of the Trial Court wrong unless there are substantial and compelling reasons.
- Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Murlidhar & Ors. V/s. In the state of Karnataka, the HC noticed that the appellate court should not interfere with the conclusions of the Trial Court unless the conclusions of the Trial Court are wrong or based on an erroneous view of the law that might cause injustice.
- The court concluded that the order of the Trial Court cannot be said illegal or contrary to law and the order of acquittal by the court will not be interfered with.
Conclusion
The High Court acting as the appellate court under Section 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 upheld the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ and acquitted the accused confirming with the order of the Trial Court. The HC also gave importance and consideration to the judgment of the trial court while referring to the judgments of the Apex Court, it held that the appellate court will not interfere with the conclusions of the Trial court unless they are found contrary to the law and seem to be causing injustice.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
