Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2nd November 1954
B.K. MUKHERJEA, BOSE AND JAGANNADHA DAS JJ.
Ramjanam Singh .. Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar .. Respondent
Criminal Appeal No 81 of 1953.
Advocates appeared
For Appellant: Messrs. H. J. Umrigar and P. K. Chatterjee, Advocates.
For Respondent: Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India (Messrs A. K. Datta, B.P.Sinha and M.M.Sinha, Advocates, with him).
Held: "Whatever the truth of this tale may be, it is evident from the prosecution case that this was not a case of laying a trap, in the usual way for to man who was demanding a bribe but of deliberately tempting a man to his own undoing after his suggestion about breaking the law had been finally and conclusively rejected with considerable emphasis and decision.
"Whatever the criminal tendencies of a man may be, he has a right to expect that he will not be deliberately tempted beyond the powers of his frail endurance and provoked into breaking the law; and more particularly by those who are the guardians and keepers of the law. However regrettable the necessity of employing agents provocateurs may be (and we realize to the full that this is unfortunately often inevitable if corruption is to be detected and bribery stamped out), it is one thing to tempt a suspected offender to overt action when he is doing all he can to commit a crime and has every intention of carrying through his nefarious purpose from start to finish, and quite another to egg him on to do that which it has been finally and firmly decided shall not be done. The very best of men have moments of weakness and temptation, and even the worst, times when they repent of an evil, thought and are given an inner strength to set Satan behind them; and if they do, whether it is because of caution, or because of their better instincts, or because some other help shown them either the futility or the wickedness of wrongdoing, it behaves society and the State to protect them and help them in their good resolve: not to place further temptation in their way and start a fresh a train of criminal thought which had been finally set aside." (per Bose J .). - Article 136-Criminal trial-Appreciation of evidence.
Held: The Supreme Court was only deciding whether the High Court had given true effect to the principles which must guide a Court in an appeal against an acquittal and was not holding that certain things must have happened as a fact because that was not its function. -Section 367-Information not included in the first information report.
Held: Information not included in the first information report and relied on neither by the courts below can be ignored. - Section 423-Appeal from acquittal-Principle.
Held: Where the trial Court acquits the accused, the presumption of innocence still remains and the fact that one Court has doubted or disbelieved the evidence strengthens the hands of the accused. It behovesth High Court in such• cases to furnish strong reasons why the benefit of the doubt should not go where it has already been placed in the lower Court. In this case the strong presumption of innocence and the doubts which the numerous circumstances to which reference has been made and which are given in greater detail in the first Court have not been displaced. The accused is therefore entitled to be acquitted.
Judgement
BOSE J. - The appellant Ramjanam Singh was prosecuted under S. 161, Penal Code, read with S. 5, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for having accepted a bribe. He was acquitted by the trying Magistrate but was convicted by the High Court on an appeal against the acquittal and was sentenced to one year s rigorous imprisonment. He was given special leave to appeal by this Court.
2. The appellant was a Sub-Inspector of Police at all material times. He was in charge of the Dinapore Police Station and was investigating dacoity charges against the complainant Sitaram Dusadh (P.W.2) under Ss. 395 and 399/402, I. P. C. on relevant dates. The prosecution story is that during the course of the investigation the appellant demanded Rs. 100 for himself and Rs. 25 for his Assistant Sub-Inspector as a bribe for dropping the proceedings against the complainant whom we shall hereafter call P. W. 2. On 17-10-1951 he is said to have been offered and to have accepted the Rs. 100.
3. It will be necessary to examine the facts in detail and first we will consider those which are said to have proceeded and led up to the actual taking of the bribe.
4. There are three police investigations to bear in mind: Dinapore Case No. 21 (8) 51, Dinapore Case No. 19 (8) 51 and Khagaul Case No. 9(7) 51. It will be enough to call them Cases Nos. 21 and 19 respectively and Case No. 9. The following facts are admitted:
5. The police received in formation in the first half of August, 1951 about the commission of a dacoity within the jurisdiction of the Dinapore Police Station and Cases Nos. 19 and 21 were registered, the former for dacoity under S. 395, I. P.C. and the latter under S. 399/402 for making preparation for the commission of a dacoity and assembly for that purpose. Sitaram Dusadh (P. W. 2) a resident of Khagaul, was named by one of the suspects and accordingly he was arrested by the Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Khagaul and Dinapore on 17-8-1951 and was sent in custody to the Dinapore Police Station in connection with both cases. He was handed over to the appellant (the Dinapore Sub-Inspector) and was kept in the police lock-up there.
6. Next day (18-8-1951) he was forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dinapore, by another Dinapore Sub-Inspector R. Nath with a recommendation that he be not released on bail , but two days later (20-8-1951) he was released on bail. This was in Case No.21.
7. A few days later, the police wanted him for an identification parade and so obtained orders for his re-arrest and detention by the Sub-Divisional Officer in charge of these cases on 29-8-1951. It seems that despite that he was not arrested till 17-9-1951 because an order sheet of that date in Case No.19 reads as follows:
As ordered the following two accused are taken into custody today : (1) Sitaram Dusadh ( P. W. 2)... They were not taken into custody as prayed by the S. I. Dinapore since they were on bail in the other case and today they appeared in Court."
The following day (1-9-1951) he was again released on bail. In his evidence Sitaram Dusadh (P. W. 2) indicates that this was on 21-9-1951 but the correct date as ascertained from the order sheet is 18-9-1951.
8. Next we turn to matter which is controversial. According to Sitaram Dusadh (P. W. 2) when he was arrested on 17-9-1951, the appellant said to him that he had not seen after he was released on bail and that he should do so. The suggestion is that this was hint that he should pay the appellant some money to secure his release.
But the curious part of this portion of the story is that Sitaram Dusadh was under arrest when this was said and was under the control of the appellant. He was not a free agent and the appellant could have sent for him or interviewed him at any time he (the appellant) pleased. It is also to be observed that in cross-examination Sitaram Dusadh, speaking of the incident of 3-10-1951 to which we shall presently refer said :
"Except on that day I had no talk with the S. I of Police accused o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
