1971 (2) TMI 120 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the reversal of acquittal by the High Court.
2. Credibility of the prosecution's witnesses and evidence.
3. Presence of anthracene powder on the appellant's hands and the cap.
4. Alleged demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant.
5. Inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and the evidence presented.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the reversal of acquittal by the High Court:

The Supreme Court scrutinized the High Court's decision to reverse the acquittal of the appellant. The High Court had convicted the appellant based on the evidence presented, which it believed was sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that while the High Court has the power to reverse an acquittal, it must consider all matters on record, including the reasons given by the Trial Court for the acquittal. The High Court should particularly consider aspects in favor of the accused and avoid acting on conjectures or surmises. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's reversal was not warranted, leading to the reinstatement of the acquittal.

2. Credibility of the prosecution's witnesses and evidence:

The Supreme Court examined the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses, including the complainant (P.W. 1), the Panch witnesses (P.W. 3 and P.W. 5), and the Anti-Corruption Officer (P.S.I. Parab, P.W. 12). The Special Judge had found discrepancies and contradictions in the witnesses' statements, leading to doubts about their reliability. The High Court, however, had relied on the evidence of Panch Patil (P.W. 5) and P.S.I. Parab to convict the appellant. The Supreme Court noted that the Special Judge's detailed consideration of the evidence revealed significant inconsistencies, which the High Court failed to adequately address. The Supreme Court found the Special Judge's assessment more credible and reinstated the acquittal.

3. Presence of anthracene powder on the appellant's hands and the cap:

The presence of anthracene powder on the appellant's hands was a crucial piece of evidence. The prosecution claimed that anthracene powder was found on the appellant's left hand fingers, which he allegedly used to tap the bribe money inside an envelope. However, the Supreme Court noted that no anthracene powder was found on the appellant's cap, which he had allegedly removed with the same hand. This inconsistency was not adequately considered by the High Court. The Special Judge had rightly pointed out that if the appellant had anthracene powder on his fingers, it would have transferred to the cap. The Supreme Court found this to be a significant oversight by the High Court and concluded that the evidence of anthracene powder was not reliable.

4. Alleged demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant:

The prosecution alleged that the appellant had demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 25 from the complainant. The complainant's testimony was supported by Panch Patil (P.W. 5) and P.S.I. Parab. However, the Special Judge found the complainant's story not credible, noting contradictions and improbabilities in the prosecution's case. The High Court had relied on the conversation between the appellant and the complainant on 6th February and the evidence of Panch Patil and P.S.I. Parab. The Supreme Court, however, found the Special Judge's assessment more convincing, highlighting the improbability of the appellant demanding a monthly bribe and the lack of a credible motive. The Supreme Court reinstated the acquittal based on these findings.

5. Inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and the evidence presented:

The Supreme Court identified several inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. The complainant's testimony contained contradictions, such as the timing of the application for permission and the presence of Shetty at the hotel. The evidence of the Panch witnesses also had discrepancies, with P.W. 3 not supporting the prosecution's case and P.W. 5's testimony being unreliable. The Special Judge had meticulously considered these inconsistencies, leading to the acquittal of the appellant. The High Court, however, had not given due weight to these contradictions. The Supreme Court found the Special Judge's reasoning more persuasive and reinstated the acquittal.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reversed the High Court's judgment, and acquitted the appellant. The appellant's bail bond was canceled. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of considering all evidence and avoiding conjectures or surmises when reversing an acquittal. The inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution's case, along with the lack of credible evidence of anthracene powder on the appellant's hands and cap, led to the reinstatement of the acquittal.