CASE BRIEF: RAJARAM v. STATE, (2020) 3 SCC 200

CASE NAME	V. Rajaram v. State, (2020) 3 SCC 200
CITATION	(2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 20, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1515
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice R. Banumathi, Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Hrishikesh Roy
PETITIONER	V. Rajaram
RESPONDENT	State represented by the Inspector of Police CBI/SCB
DECIDED ON	Decided on 26th November, 2019

INTRODUCTION

Serious charges of corruption and negligence of duty against a police chief constable under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were heard by the Supreme Court of India. The appellant was accused of neglecting to take the appropriate measures against offenders and of receiving payments to release automobiles held under the Motor Automobiles Act, as charged under Sections 161 and 217 of the Act. The complaint in the case said that the appellant had demanded illicit money in order to sway the results of ongoing investigations.

The prosecution’s argument focused on demonstrating that the appellant had deliberately ignored his responsibilities as a public servant in order to shield certain parties from legal action. Examining the meaning of Section 217 of the IPC, which addresses the misbehavior of public officers, required careful consideration of this case. The appellant contested the legality of the accusations, claiming that there was insufficient proof to support a conviction. A fine balance between accountability and the rights of public servants facing serious allegations is highlighted by the case, which calls into question the standards of proof required in corruption trials.

FACTS OF THE CASE

People’s opinion polls on the political heir of then Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi were published in the newspaper Dinakaran on May 9, 2007. The results indicated that Mr. M.K. Stalin was more well-liked by the people than his older brother, M.K. Alagiri, as the political successor to M. Karunanidhi. M.K. Alagiri’s followers protested against the newspaper in front of the Dinakaran headquarters. About fifty people arrived at the Dinakaran Newspaper office in vehicles at 10:00 a.m., led by Saravanan, the former secretary of the DMK Volunteer Wing. They began damaging the office’s glass panes and breaking the glass doors with wooden logs. PW-30-Selvaraj, the appellant, the Additional Superintendent of Police at the time, and other law enforcement officers arrived at the location.

The appellant and other police officers there obeyed the order to use force on the demonstrators and drive them out. The aforementioned Saravanan returned and led a gang of persons who were throwing soda bottles at the Dinakaran Newspaper headquarters. They were chased away by the appellant and other police officers using force. The supporters congregated in front of the Dinakaran Newspaper headquarters at about 11:45 a.m. A gang of people (accused Nos. 1 through 16) arrived at the Dinakaran Daily office in a white Tata Sumo car, armed with iron rods and dandas (sticks), under the leadership of V.P. Pandi, S/o Ponnusamy @ Attack Pandi. They broke inside the office and arsonally destroyed two motorcycles that were parked in the compound close to the security office.

Subsequently, they vandalized the Dinakaran property and lit the reception area on fire. The mischievous behavior and illegal deeds of the miscreants proved too much for the on-duty private security personnel to handle. Three Dinakaran Newspaper employees—Vinoth Kumar (Deceased No. 1), Gopinath (Deceased No. 2), and security guard Muthuramalingam (Deceased No. 3)—were caught in the devouring fire and perished as a result of the incident. After receiving information, M. Balasubramanian, Fire Station Officer (PW-50), proceeded to the Dinakaran office at midday with a group of firefighters and fire engines and made attempts to put out the fire.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether there was enough evidence to support the allegations made against the appellant under Sections 221 and 217 of the Indian Penal Code and establish his or her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
Whether the appellant intentionally broke the law in order to spare others from punishment, as required by Section 217 of the IPC, or not, as a public worker?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Arguments on behalf of the appellant

The appellant cannot be held accountable for not stopping the accused’s crime since the Senior Police Officers, the Superintendent of Police (PW-29) and Additional Superintendent of Police (PW-30), were controlling the police bandobust and giving instructions. This is something the High Court has neglected to take into consideration.
The argument went on to say that the High Court erred by using the Compact Discs as evidence when, according to Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, there had to be a certification.
Senior counsel further stated that PW-27, the Nakkeeran Bi-weekly Magazine photographer who is purported to have taken pictures and video, and PW-28, the news reporter of the same magazine, have become antagonistic and have not supported the prosecution’s case, and the High Court has not taken this into consideration.
The learned senior counsel argued that the High Court incorrectly reversed the appellant’s order of acquittal and that the High Court neglected to consider the established rule that an order of acquittal should normally not be altered unless there is a mistake in the evaluation of the evidence and the trial court’s decision was erroneous.

Arguments on behalf of the respondent

The appellant was in charge of the bandobust duty at the Dinakaran Newspaper Building at the relevant period when the offense was committed, starting at 9:30 a.m. The appellant purposefully did nothing to stop the accused’s mischievous behavior and illegal conduct. The respondent, the CBI, has presented evidence that the appellant, who was in charge of the bandobust, could have easily stopped the attack and the arson and taken the accused “Attack Pandi” and the other accused into custody when they started committing the crime.
The learned senior counsel for the CBI has drawn attention to the contents of Sections 217 IPC and 221 IPC.
Learned Senior counsel also stated that M.O.45-CD, photos, and six Compact Discs (M.Os.49 to 54) were sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), New Delhi, and that the trial court erred in rejecting the expert’s opinion because PW-77, Senior Scientific Officer of CFSL, testified that the photos and videos on the CDs had not been tampered with.
It was argued that the High Court properly cited M.O.45-CD, other relevant objects, Compact Discs, and Expert Witness testimony (PW-77). The High Court also correctly concluded that there was no evidence of tampering with the Compact Discs or video CDs to support the accused’s role and the appellant’s failure to fulfill his legal obligations.
Relying on Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), learned senior counsel argued that in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court has the authority to examine all relevant evidence, reach a conclusion, and overturn the acquittal order, with the prevention of injustice being the primary consideration.
It was argued that the appellant was rightfully found guilty when the High Court overturned his acquittal, and the esteemed Senior Counsel filed a request to have the appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

The appellant was accused of violating Sections 217 and 221 of the Indian Penal Code, claiming that he disregarded the law in an attempt to save the accused and that he was careless in locating the accused. After reviewing the prosecution’s oral evidence, the court determined that the appellant was not guilty of the accusations brought against him or her under Sections 217 and 221 IPC. As a result, the appellant’s conviction was overturned, and he or she was declared innocent. The primary event is not connected to the appellant in any manner. The appellant was tried on a charge that was entirely different and distinct from the accusation that the other defendants were tried on. Thus, a separate hearing was held for the instant appeal. The Supreme Court is currently considering appeals filed by the other suspects who were found guilty of crimes under Section 302 IPC and other offenses. The other accused’s appeals will be heard on their own merits, and the decisions made in these appeals will not influence the outcome of those appeals.

CONCLUSION

The appellant, a police head constable, was found guilty under Sections 221 and 217 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for accepting illegal gratification and failing to act against offenders in the Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1765-1766 of 2019 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 3433-34 of 2019). The appellant contested the conviction, claiming that there was insufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the charges were unfounded. He argued that there was no written agreement or direct evidence connecting him to the crime, and that the prosecution had not produced any hard evidence of the suspected illegal transactions.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court underlined that circumstantial evidence or the simple presence of marked banknotes is insufficient to establish bribery under the Indian Penal Code. The court cited Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, which made a distinction between the standards of proof required by Section 217 of the IPC and Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act. The prosecution must prove, according to Section 217 of the statute, that the accused intentionally broke the law in order to spare someone from punishment or prevent property from being forfeited, the court emphasized.

The court also took into account the dubio pro reo principle, which states that in situations involving criminal charges, doubts should be resolved in the accused’s favor. The appellant denied the charges, and the Supreme Court found that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. The appellant was found not guilty, emphasizing the need to exercise caution when taking circumstantial evidence as absolute proof of guilt.