Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.
M.O. SHAMSUDHIN
Versus
STATE OF KERALA
Criminal Appeals No. 553 of 1991 with Nos. 451-52 of 1991{From the Judgment and Order dated 23-11-1990 of the Kerala High Court in Crl. A. No. 245 of 1990}
Decided on 21-3-1995
Advocates appeared:
U.R. Lalit and G. Ramaswamy, Senior Advocates (M.K. Michael, E.M.S. Anam and M.T. George, Advocates, with them) for the appearing parties.
Held: It is well-settled that the corroborating evidence can be even by way of circumstantial evidence. No general rule can be laid down with respect to quantum of evidence corroborating the testimony of a trap witness which again would depend upon its own facts and circumstances like the nature of the crime, the character of trap witness etc. and other general requirements necessary to sustain the conviction in that case. The court should weigh the evidence and then see whether corroboration is necessary. Therefore as a rule of law it cannot be laid down that the evidence of every complainant in a bribery case should be corroborated in all material particulars and otherwise it cannot be acted upon. Whether corroboration is necessary and if so to what extent and what should be its nature depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In a case of bribe, the person who pays the bribe and those who act as intermediaries are theonly persons who can ordinarily be expected to give evidence about the bribe and it is not possible to get absolutely independent evidence about the payment of bribe. However, it is cautioned that the evidence of a bribe-giver has to be scrutinised very carefully and it is for the court to consider ad appreciate the evidence in a proper manner and decide the question whether a conviction can be based upon or not in those given circumstances (Para 17)
Further Held: Itis not in dispute that he had to get a patta issued by A 1 and he categorically stated that A 1 made the demand. A 2 was his Assistant and the tainted money was recovered from A 2 while he was just going out of the office of A 1. Unless A 1 has demanded the money and has also directed him to hand over the same to A 2, there was\not reason to all as to wby P.W. 1 should hand over the money to A 2. P.W. 1 has consistently stated that A 1 demanded the bribe and that A 2 received the amount as stated by him. Therefore it cannot be said-that there is no corroboration regarding the demand. This is a case where each of the accused tried to throw the blame on the other but taking the overall circumstances into consideration in the light of the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 alongwith the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 both the courts below have consistently held that the evidence of these witnesses establish the guilt of the accused and we see no reason to come to a different conclusion. (Para 18)
Consequently Held: Coming to the sentence we find that there are good grounds to reduce the same. The offence itself is said to have been committed in the year 1987 and both the appellants have lost their jobs and have undergone the agony of facing the criminal proceedings all these years. We find that they have been in jail for quite some time and we think it is not a fit case where they should be sent back to jail. Therefore while confIrming their convictions we reduce the sentence of imprisonment under each count, which are directed to run concurrently, to the period already undergone. The sentences of fine with default clause are, however, confmned. Subject to this modification of the sentence of imprisonment all these appeals are dismissed. (Para 19)
JUDGMENT
K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.—These appeals arise out of a common judgment of the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Appeals Nos. 196 of 1990 and 245 of 1990 filed by the appellants herein C.K. Karunakaran and M.O. Shamsudhin respectively. The two appellants figured as Accused 1 and 2 in CC No. 7/89 on the file of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissoor and they have been found guilty under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 161 read with Section 120-B IPC. A-1C.K. Karunakaran was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs 1000 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two months for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and to rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 161 read with Section 120-B IPC. A-2 M.O. Shamsudhin was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs 500 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act and to rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 161 read with Section 120-B IPC. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. The appeals filed by them were dismissed by the High Court. Since it was a common judgment of the High Court in two appeals, A-l has chosen to file two appeals i.e. Criminal Appeals Nos. 451-52 of 1991 and A-2 has chosen to file only one appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 553 of 1991. Since common questions arise in these appeals, they can be disposed of together by a common judgment.
2. At the relevant time A-l was the Tehsildar and A-2 was the Village Assistant. One Kunjan, deceased father of PW 1, Rajan applied for patta with regard to 55 cents of Sarkar Porambokku land in Kalur Village. Kunjan had remitted the necessary amount on 25-1-1974 pursuant to a notice. The balance amount of Rs 42 was also remitted sometime in 1975. After satisfactory compliance with the required formalities, patta was directed to be issued in his favour by the Board of Revenue. Before the patta could be issued Kunjan died. The matter was not pursued till 1987. On 8-6-1987 PW 1 sent PW 2, his cousin, to enquire about the issuance of the patta. PW 2 met A-2 who told him that issuance of patta would entail some expenses and PW 2 conveyed the same to PW 1 who together with PW 2 met the accused at their office when a demand for bribe of Rs 500 was reportedly made. PW 1 thought it was improper to give the bribe. He therefore filed a complaint Ex. P-4 before PW 11, Dy SP Vigilance in the presence of PW 3, Auditor, District Cooperative Bank and PW 4, Inspector of Factories and Boilers. A case was registered, mahazars were prepared and the currency notes were subjected to phenolphthalein test and the tainted money was handed over to PW 1 to be given in turn to the accused on demand. PWs 7 and 8, Vigilance Constables followed PWs 1 and 2 to the office of A-1. PW 11 and others were also on the move. According to PW 1, he entered the office of A-1 and told him that he had brought the amount asked for. A-1 asked him to give the amount to A-2 who was standing nearby. PW 1 gave the amount to A-2 who put the same in his pant pocket. PW 2 also was there at that time. PW 1 went out and gave the signal. Then all of them including the mediators PWs 3 and 4 went to the office of A-l. PW 11 disclosed his identity and PW 1 told him that A-2 had received the money as per the instructions of A-l. On being questioned A-2 took out Rs 500 from his pant pocket and the numbers on the currency notes tallied. Corner parts of the currency notes and the pant worn by A-2 as well as his fingers were dipped in lime water and the phenolphthalein test proved positive. The necessary panchnama incorporating all the facts was drawn up. The investigation of the crime was partly conducted by PW 11 followed by PW 12 w
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
