Back
High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. GARG
Hari Singh Yadav
Versus
State
CRL.A. No. 464 of 2004
Decided On : 18-02-2014
Bribery - Conviction under PC Act - Section 7, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) - [PC Act, Section 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d)] - The court discussed the demand of bribe, trap operation, witness testimonies, and the lack of evidence to establish the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The court highlighted the importance of proving demand and acceptance of the bribe, the need for independent corroboration, and the requirement of evidence to dislodge the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe. The prosecution's case revolved around a written complaint alleging demand of bribe by the appellant, a trap operation, and the recovery of the tainted money from the appellant. The appellant pleaded false implication and challenged the evidence and investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant made a demand of bribe as a motive for any official act. The court highlighted inconsistencies in witness testimonies, lack of independent corroboration, and the absence of evidence to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The court concluded that the appellant deserved the benefit of doubt and set aside the conviction and sentence.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of witness testimonies, the establishment of demand and acceptance of the bribe, the sufficiency of evidence to dislodge the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act, and the appellant's plea of false implication.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving demand and acceptance of the bribe, the need for independent corroboration, and the requirement of evidence to dislodge the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act. The court also highlighted that mere receiving of money divorced from the circumstances under which it was paid is not sufficient to base conviction.
Final Decision: The appeal was accepted, and the conviction and sentence were set aside. The appellant was granted the benefit of doubt, and the trial court record was sent back forthwith.
S.P. Garg, J.
1. Hari Singh Yadav (the appellant) impugns a judgment dated 17.05.2004 of learned Special Judge, Delhi in RC No. 38 (A)/98, CC No. 125/2001 by which he was convicted under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with ection 13 (1)(d) of PC Act. By an order dated 18.05.2004, he was awarded rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine Rs.5,000/- under Section 7 and rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine Rs. 5,000/- under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The substantive sentences were to operate concurrently.
2. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 13.07.1998, Gurcharan Singh lodged a written complaint with CBI alleging demand of bribe of Rs. 5,000/- by Hari Singh Yadav, Sub Inspector, PS Mehrauli from his sister Harbans Kaur for not implicating her and her husband in a false case. It was further alleged that due to failure to pay the bribe, Harbans Kaur and her husband were implicated in a case under Sections 107/150 Cr.P.C. for which a notice was delivered to appear before SDM on 14.07.1998. When the complainant and his sister contacted the accused on 13.07.1998 in his office, he repeated the demand of Rs. 5,000/- which on request was reduced to Rs. 15,00/- to be paid in the evening. Since the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe, he lodged the complaint with CBI. Further case of the prosecution is that the investigation was assigned to Insp. A.K.Singh who organised a trap team and arranged two independent witnesses Bajrang Bali and Devender. The complainant was introduced to both the independent witnesses as well as to the trap team members. The complainant produced a sum of Rs. 1,500/- in the form of 15 GC notes in the denomination of Rs. 100/- each. After noting down the numbers of GC notes in the handing over memo, the notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and a practical demonstration was given to all trap members. The powder treated notes were kept in the left side shirt pocket of the complainant with the direction to hand over the same to the accused on his specific demand of bribe and not otherwise. Devender was directed to act as shadow witness and to remain as close as possible to see the transaction of bribe money and to overhear the conversation between the complainant and the accused. He was further directed to give a signal by scratching his head with both hands after the transaction was over. After completing and recording pre-trap proceedings, the trap team left CBI office at 04.10 P.M. and reached at police station Mehtrauli at about 05.15 P.M. Further case of the prosecution is that the complainant and shadow witness Devender were directed to proceed inside the police station. Other team members were directed to take suitable position in the nearby area. Trap Laying Officer (TLO) and independent witness Bajrang Bali took suitable position. Complainant and Devender met the accused inside the police station and had formal conversation. Thereafter, the accused at the request of the complainant and shadow witness showed them the police station. They all came out of it and went to Verma Bakeries situated opposite to the police station. While moving outside the police station, the accused had a conversation regarding demand of bribe with the complainant. It was further alleged that all of them took cold drinks at the bakery shop. While moving out of the shop, the accused demanded the bribe amount from the complainant by opening the mouth of the right side pocket with the help of his right hand fingers and directed him to put the bribe amount inside the pocket and the complainant did that accordingly. As soon as the transaction was over, the shadow witness gave a pre-appointed signal and on receiving it, the trap team rushed towards the accused and apprehended him at the stairs of the shop. When confronted, the accused admitted having demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs. 1,500/- from the complainant. Bajrang Bali recovered the tainted amount of
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
