More than twenty years after a contractor accused a Garrison Engineer of demanding a bribe, the High Court of Bombay at Goa has brought the prolonged case to a close by upholding his acquittal.
Justice Ashish Chavan dismissed the CBI’s appeal to a 2014 ruling of the Special CBI Court in Mapusa, holding that investigators had failed to prove a bribe demand by Pravin Kumar beyond reasonable doubt.
The appeal had been pending since 2016 for the case wherein the engineer was charged with demanding and accepting Rs 5,000.
As per the case details, contractor Umesh Salgaonkar claimed the officer sought a bribe for processing an extension related to a Navy housing project at Vasco. A trap was laid the next day and Kumar was arrested with marked currency notes.
Details further reveal that the contract was executed on June 14, 2000 for an amount of Rs 2,25,85,369.65. The accused was supervising the construction work and since there was delay in the completion of work, the complainant made an application to the Chief Engineer (Navy), Mumbai Zone, Mumbai, on August 14, 2002, for granting an extension of time up to August 20, 2002. It was during this time that the complainant alleged the officer demanded Rs 5,000 bribe.
The High Court found that the prosecution’s case hinged entirely on an alleged hand gesture made by the officer to signal the demand.
Justice Chavan noted that the complainant, the panch witness and the investigating officer all gave mutually inconsistent accounts of what gesture was made and which fingers were used. The complainant admitted he had no knowledge or expertise in interpreting gestures, while the panch witness conceded he could not say what any finger movement meant and contradicted the complainant’s version.
“The entire edifice of the prosecution case of the demand of illegal gratification rests on the theory of a hand gesture allegedly made by the accused. From the aforesaid discussion, this theory falls through as the prosecution has not established the factum of demand beyond a reasonable doubt,” the Bench observed.
The CBI, during the hearing earlier, argued the trial court placed undue emphasis on minor discrepancies and failed to appreciate the evidence of the complainant, the panch witness and the recovery of cash. It also said the Special Judge had misread the hand-gesture testimony.
But the High Court held that the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s narrative were substantial, not minor, and directly undermined its case. It also noted that the investigating officer failed to verify the alleged initial demand before laying the trap.
Citing Supreme Court doctrine that an acquittal must be upheld if the trial court’s view is reasonably possible, the High Court ruled that there was no perversity in the Special Court’s decision.
“I find that the impugned judgment and order dated 10.09.2014 suffers from no infirmity and has given cogent and clear reasoning as to the failure of the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no illegality, perversity or error in the reasoning of the Trial Court. The Appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment dated 10.09.2014 passed by the Special Judge, CBI Court, Goa in Special Case No.12/2013/T acquitting the accused, is confirmed,” reads the order.
