Reversing the conviction order of three BMC officials, terming it “perverse”, the Bombay High Court observed that not only did the prosecution fail to prove its case beyond doubt, but also the special judge did not look at the evidence in an unbiased manner.
Justice Bharati Dangre acquitted executive engineer Sunil Rathod, assistant engineer Vilas Khillari and sub engineer Balaji Birajdar, along with two others, Satish Palav and Narayan Patil, who were convicted by a special court in August 2018 for demanding money from a contractor to get permissions for a project in Dadar. The BMC officials were posted with the building proposals department at Byculla.
Expressing dissatisfaction with the special court’s order, the HC observed, “I was constrained to refer to the entire evidence afresh as the special judge did not delve into the evidence, nor did not he appreciate the same. As a court of first instance, it was duty-bound to scrutinize the evidence before arriving at a finding of guilt.”
The HC took note of the fact that the defense counsels had argued extensively on behalf of the accused before the special court, but unfortunately, the entire exercise was “in vain” as the conviction order was passed “without even touching the evidence on record”.
As far as the prosecution case is concerned, the HC has observed that there were several inconsistencies in the statements given by eye witnesses. “The inconsistencies in the version of the prosecution witnesses are not in the form of mere marginal variation, but they amount to contradictions in material,” observed the HC.
Besides, the prosecution has failed to establish that the BMC officials demanded bribe. “The prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the money was offered by the prosecution witness on the behest of the accused, particularly when on earlier dates the demand was not verified.”
Even the transcripts of the phone call did not support the prosecution’s case.
The HC added, “Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only when there is proof of demand. The same is conspicuously lacking in the present case.”
In a corruption case, the complainant’s claim needs to be closely scrutinized since giving bribe, too, is an offence. “The complainant himself is in the nature of accomplice and his version, prima facie, demand a corroboration in material particulars which is conspicuously absent in the case of the prosecution,” said the HC.
On August 18, 2018, the special court had sentenced Khillari and Birajdar to four years’ imprisonment and Rathod was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. Architect Palav and Patil were sentenced to three years imprisonment for abetting the crime.ded, “Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only when there is proof of demand. The same is conspicuously lacking in the present case.”
