Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ.
Vinod Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 554 OF 2012
Decided On : 21-01-2015
(2013) 7 SCC 108; (2000) 5 SCC 668; (2001) 5 SCC 667 – Relied upon
(b) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 7 and 13 – Trap witness – Is an interested witness – His evidence requires corroboration for acceptance. (Para 22)
(1959) SCR 195; (1962) 2 SCR 195; (1962) 2 SCR 195; (1969) 1 SCR 22; (1969) 1 SCR 22; (1995) 3 SCC 351; (1972) 3 All ER 1056; (1973) 1 All ER 440 – Relied upon
AIR 1954 SC 322 – Referred
(c) Criminal trial – Member of raiding party sending complaint on basis of which FIR lodged – Himself conducting investigation – Nothing brought out showing that he was anyway personally interested to get the appellant convicted – Investigation not vitiated. (Para 28)
(1976) 1 SCC 15; (2004) 5 SCC 223; (2004) 5 SCC 230 – Relied upon
(1996) 11 SCC 709 – Referred
(d) Criminal trial – Hostile witness – Evidence of – Not completely effaced – Conviction can be based on such evidence if corroborated. (Para 29, 31)
(1976) 1 SCC 389; (1991) 3 SCC 627; (1976) 4 SCC 233; (1980) 1 SCC 30; (1999) 8 SCC 649 – Relied upon
(e) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 7, 13 and 20 – For establishing passing of money direct evidence is not necessary – It can also be established by other indirect or circumstantial evidence – Hence the Complainant turning hostile will not be fatal to prosecution if other reliable evidence is available. (Para 33 to 38)
(1980) 2 SCC 390; (1975) 2 SCC 227; (2001) 1 SCC 691 – Relied upon
(1975) 2 SCC 227; (1979) 4 SCC 725; (1911) 1 KB 988 : 1911 WN 53; (1998) 7 SCC 337; (1974) 4 SCC 560; (2000) 8 SCC 571 – Referred
2014 (11) SCALE 467; (2014) 4 SCALE 81 – Distinguished
(f) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 7 – Mere recovery of tainted money – In absence of evidence as to demand and payment of bribe – Not sufficient to record conviction unless there is evidence that bribe had been demanded and accepted. (Para 39)
AIR 2006 SC 836; (2000) 8 SCC 571; AIR 2008 SC 3217; (2009) 15 SCC 200; AIR 2009 SC 2011; (2012) 3 SCC 721; (2014) 13 SCC 143 – Relied upon
(g) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 7 and 13 – Complainant initially, in his examination –in-chief, supporting prosecution story – Turning hostile in cross-examination – Cross-examination conducted after 20 months – Shadow witness giving complete sequence of demand of bribe, trap, acceptance of bribe and recovery – Trap witness deposing about recovery – Initial evidence of complainant consistently tallying with and corroborated by evidence of other witnesses – Even after the complainant turned hostile, his corroborated evidence can be relied upon for conviction. (Para 39, 40)
(1976) 1 SCC 727; (2009) 3 SCC 779; (2010) 4 SCC 450 – Referred
Facts of the case:
Baj Singh, PW-5, used to bring earth in tractor trolley within the municipal area of Rajpura. The appellant, at the relevant time, was posted as Octroi Inspector and he demanded Rs.20/-per trolley for permitting him to enter into the municipal area. Eventually, a deal was struck that the accused-appellant would be paid Rs.500/-per month for the smooth operation.
On 25.1.1995, Baj Singh met Jagdish Verma and disclosed before him the fact about the demand of the accused for permitting the entry of the tractor trolley inside the municipal area and thereafter, as he was not desirous of obliging the accused, he narrated the entire story to DSP Vigilance. Thereafter a trap was laid. Chargesheet was placed for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act.
Jagdish Verma, PW-7, in his examination-in-chief, supported the prosecution case in all aspects, but in cross-examination, resiled from his examination-in-chief.
The trial Judge came to hold that though the complainant had not supported the case of the prosecution yet prosecution had been able to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe and the recovery of the tainted money from the accused and, therefore, the presumption as envisaged under Section 20 of the Act would get attracted and accordingly convicted the accused and sentenced him.
High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
There is no merit in the appeal.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
If one is asked a question, what afflicts the legally requisite criminal trial in its conceptual eventuality in this country the two reasons that may earn the status of phenomenal signification are, first, procrastination of trial due to non-availability of witnesses when the trial is in progress and second, unwarranted adjournments sought by the counsel conducting the trial and the unfathomable reasons for acceptation of such prayers for adjournments by the trial courts, despite a statutory command under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and series of pronouncements by this Court. What was a malady at one time, with the efflux of time, has metamorphosed into malignancy. What was a mere disturbance once has become a disorder, a diseased one, at present.
2. The instant case frescoes and depicts a scenario that exemplifies how due to passivity of the learned trial Judge, a witness, despite having stood embedded absolutely firmly in his examination-in-chief, has audaciously and, in a way, obnoxiously, thrown all the values to the wind, and paved the path of tergiversation. It would not be a hyperbole to say that it is a maladroit and ingeniously designed attempt to strangulate and crucify the fundamental purpose of trial, that is, to arrive at the truth on the basis of evidence on record. The redeeming feature is, despite the malevolent and injurious assault, the cause of justice has survived, for there is, in the ultimate eventuate, a conviction which is under assail in this appeal, by special leave.
3. The narration of the sad chronology shocks the judicial conscience and gravitates the mind to pose a question, is it justified for any conscientious trial Judge to ignore the statutory command, not recognize “the felt necessities of time” and remain impervious to the cry of the collective asking for justice or give an indecent and uncalled for burial to the conception of trial, totally ostracizing the concept that a civilized and orderly society thrives on rule of law which includes “fair trial” for the accused as well as the prosecution.
4. In the aforesaid context, we may recapitulate a passage from Gurnaib Singh V. State of Punjab, (2013) 7 SCC 108.
“...... We are compelled to proceed to reiterate the law and express our anguish pertaining to the manner in which the trial was conducted as it depicts a very disturbing scenario. As is demonstrable from the record, the trial was conducted in an extremely haphazard and piecemeal manner. Adjournments were granted on a mere asking. The cross-examination of the witnesses was deferred without recording any special reason and dates were given after a long gap. The mandate of the law and the views expressed by this Court from time to time appears to have been totally kept at bay. The learned trial Judge, as is perceptible, seems to have ostracised from his memory that a criminal trial has its own gravity and sanctity. In this regard, we may refer with profit to the pronouncement in Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar, AIR 1958 SC 376 wherein it has been stated that an accused person by his conduct cannot put a fair trial into jeopardy, for it is the primary and paramount duty of the criminal courts to ensure that the risk to fair trial is removed and trials are allowed to proceed smoothly without any interruption or obstruction.”
5. Be it noted, in the said case, the following passage from Swaran Singh V. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 668 was reproduced.
“It has become more or less a fashion to have a criminal case adjourned again and again till the witness tires and gives up. It is the game of unscrupulous lawyers to get adjournments for one excuse or the other till a witness is won over or is tired. Not only is a witness threatened, he is abducted, he is maimed, he is done away with, or even bribed. There is no protection for him. In adjourning the matter without any valid cause a court unwittingly becomes party to miscar
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
