LexSTATE OF GUJARAT versus RAGHUNATH VAMANRAO BAXI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
733 STATE OF GUJARAT v. RAGHUNATH VAMANRAO BAXI April 16, 1985 [0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND E.S. VENKATAAMIAH, JJ.] Evidence-A.ppreciaaon of oral evidence of different witnesses, explained- Where the oral evielence supported by circumstantial evidence lead 011/y to one possible view of guilt and no two views were reasonably possible, the accused must be held guilty of the offence charged-Trap witnesses, evidentiary value of-- Sentence-When the statute prescribes a n1inim11m sentence. the fact that t/Je offence was committed long back or that the accused retired from service will he of no avail. The Respondent was an Income Tax omccr. He was tried aad cocvic .. ted of the offences under section 161 Indian PeDal Code read and sectioa 5(2) read with section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention or Corruption Act. T.b.i:- proseK!liltion produced amons others, PWs the manaa:iog partaer of a ir• k:a1"a ., M/s. Hind Ftrtilizers, Bhavna1ar, an assc1see befor• the accusetl from wltoM a bribe of Rs. 12,500 was demanded aad acccpttd on 1-4.3.1972, Sri Parikh, Manager Postal Store Departmeet, witaess, to the traD laid a1ainst the accu"ed and Mr. Judei• (PW 9) the Dy. Supdt. of Police. The defonc' or the &CCU•ed was that the prosecution v~rsion of how the currency notes were seized from him was false and that PWs 2 & 3 must have placed the notes ill the newspaper when he had aone to the toilet. The Ai. dditiohal Specia.1 Judae, Ah1nedabad accepted the prosecution version, co11victed the_ respo•dent of the offences with which he was ell.arced and sentenced him to undergo rigorous irnprisoJllment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 on each or the two counts. On ADpeal, the High Court of Gujarat acquitted the accused of both the offences. Hence the State-appeal by special leave of the Court. Allowin1 the appeal, the Court. B c D E F HELD: 1.1 From the c:vidcnce of PWs 2, 3 and 9 it is clear beyond doubt G that a sum of Ri. 12,500 was paid to and received by the accused as a bribe and therefore, his conviction by the Trial Court was wrongly set a~ide by the High Court. This is not a case where two views were reasonably possible. The only possible view was that the accused was guilty of both the offences under section 161 Indian Penal code and section 5(2) read with section S(l)(d) of the Preven- tion of Corruption Act, 1947. [741G·H] H A 8 c ' n E H 734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 3 S.C.R. 1.2 Jn the instant case, both Parikh (PW 3) and Panchal (not examined) are certainly independent witnesses. Both of the1n are government servants belonging to a different department, and if Jn5pector Sharma thought that they could be called as independent panch witnesses, no motive can be imputed to the investigating agency and no aspersions can be cast on the said witnesses. The evidence of Parikh was truthful. His evidence substan- tiates the evidence of PW 2, about the acceptance of the bribe by the accu~ed and his keeping the money in a folded newspaper. ·From the circumstances t~at the accused did not keep open the doors of his house expecting PW 2, that ·he was in conversation with PW 2 for more than 40 minutes instead of sending hJm away after taking the alleged bribe, tha• the colour of the solution had changed to yellow when the Chemical Examiner, examined it· and that the failure to examine Sharma the Inspector no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution. In fact, the prosecution offered Sharma for cross-examination and kept him ready in court. The counsel for the accused stated that since the v.lic. ness had already been dropped by the prosecution, he did not want to examine him unless the court directed him to do so. After the failure of the counsel of the accused -to take advantage of the oITer made by the prosecution it is not open to the accused in the appeal by special leave to comment upon the so.called failure of the prosecution to e11:amine Inspector Sharma as a witness. [740B·D, F; 741B, B·E) 2.1 In appreciating oral evidence, the question in each case is whetl~er the witness is a truthful witness and whether there is anvthing to doubt his vefa. city in any particular matter about which he depose;. \Vhere the witness: is found to be untruthful on material facts that is an end of the matter. Where fhe witness is foun.d to be partly truthful or spring from tainted sources, the coUrt may take the tfr~caution of seeking sJm~ coLroJ:iration, ad
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.