Back
2017 Supreme(Pat) 776
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
BIRENDRA KUMAR, J.
Gopal Krishna Son of Late Bhola Ishar & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar through Vigilance & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal (SJ) Nos. 30, 45, 53, 91, 93 & 96 of 2011
Decided On : 02-08-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Mr. P.P.N. Sahi, Mr. Prem Sheela Pandey, Mr. B.K. Tiwary, Mr. Arun Kumar, Mr. Bipin Kumar
For the Respondent: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for meticulous evidence to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt in corruption cases, emphasizing the importance of documentary and physical verification as best evidence.
Headnote:
Corruption - Indian Penal Code - Prevention of Corruption Act - 120B, 420, 468, 471, 5(2) - [120B, 420, 468, 471, 5(2)] - The court discussed the offenses under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The judgment analyzed the evidence and found serious infirmities in the prosecution case, leading to the benefit of doubt for the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants faced trial for various offenses including corruption and embezzlement of public money. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, in collusion with each other, misused their positions to embezzle public money in schemes related to digging wells on private land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found serious infirmities in the prosecution case, including lack of evidence to substantiate criminal conspiracy and embezzlement. The court noted that important materials, such as the initial inquiry report and allegation petition, were not brought on record, prejudicing the appellants' case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, the lack of documentary evidence, and the failure to establish criminal conspiracy and embezzlement of public money.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt due to serious infirmities in the prosecution case, lack of evidence of criminal conspiracy, and failure to produce important materials for the case. The judgment emphasized the importance of documentary and physical verification as best evidence.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and sentences passed by the trial court were set aside, and the criminal appeals were allowed, exonerating the appellants from the liability of the bail bond.
All the above named appellants along with co-accused Sachidanand Sinha, who was acquitted for lack of evidence, faced trial in connection with Special Case No. 74 of 1986 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 29 of 1986 (Ext. 1) for offences under Sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Appellants Ramprit Rai, Narendra Kumar Sharma, Shiv Nandan Singh and Gopal Krishna were further charged for offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as under Sections 409 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned trial Judge sentenced all the above named appellants, for offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, for offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, for offence under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and for offence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.
4. The appellants Ramprit Rai, Narendra Kumar Sharma, Shiv Nandan Singh and Gopal Krishna were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for offence under Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Appellants Nepal Jha and Shankar Paswan have further been convicted under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
6. The aforesaid conviction and sentences, vide judgment dated 21st December, 2010 passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance- II, Patna, are under challenge in the aforesaid appeals.
7. I.A. No. 140 of 2017 has been filed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 96 of 2011 whereby the learned counsel for the appellant informed that they have learnt that appellant had died a few years back. However, no relative of the appellant could be contacted.
8. A report was called for from the Superintendent of Police concerned of the district who reported that no whereabouts of the appellant is known at the referred address.
9. Heard learned counsel for the other appellants as well as the respondents.
10. A conjoint reading of the evidence of P.W. 1 Arun Kumar Singh Vinit as well as his written report to the officer-in-charge of vigilance police station vide Ext. 1 on the basis whereof Patna Vigilance P.S. Case No. 29 of 1986 was registered would reveal that the prosecution case is that one Shideshwar Mahto, Up-Pramukh and one Ramdeo Singh jointly filed written complaint of financial embezzlement of public money by the accused persons in collusion with each other in different schemes of the government relating to digging of well on private land of the marginalized family of the society.
11. It is worth to point out here that neither the aforesaid complainants have been examined in this case nor their complaint petition has been brought on the record.
12. Further prosecution case is that the informant conducted a preliminary inquiry about the aforesaid complaints and prepared a preliminary inquiry report vide his admission in paragraph 34 of the deposition. He further admitted that there is mention about the estimated cost of the schemes in the preliminary inquiry report. He had recorded statement of the contractors of the scheme vide his admission in paragraph 35 and 36 of his deposition. The witness further admitted in paragraph 41 of his deposition that he had not physically verified whether the work of digging of well was executed at the spot or not. He had submitted preliminary inquiry report simply on the statement of the witnesses and the contractors.
13. Copy of the preliminary inquiry report has not been brought on the record which is basis of the case. In the written report o
