Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 2297
High Court of Delhi
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
Munshi Ram & Another
Versus
State
CRL.A. No. 728, 729 of 2008
Decided On: 17-10-2014
For the Appellants:Dr. Kanwal Sapra, H.R. Dhamija, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Isha Khanna, APP.
Credibility of witnesses and sufficiency of evidence are crucial in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Conviction under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) - PC Act
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, a Sub Inspector and a Constable in the Delhi Police, were convicted for demanding and accepting bribes from a complainant who had purchased stolen jewelry. The complainant reported the demand to the Anti-Corruption Branch and participated in a raid where the bribe money was handed over to the constable.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the raiding party and the complainant credible, despite attempts by the complainant to help the accused. The court rejected the defense's arguments regarding inconsistencies and lack of evidence.
Issues: Credibility of witnesses, sufficiency of evidence, and legality of the conclusion by the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the conviction based on the credible evidence of the raiding party and the complainant, rejecting the defense's arguments.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the sentences were upheld.
1. These two appeals are directed against the impugned judgment dated 7th August 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge in CC No. 129 of 2006, convicting the Appellants for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) as well as the order on sentence dated 11th August 2008, whereby for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act each of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (‘RI’) for a period of one year along with fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment (‘SI’) for two months each and for the offence under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, each of them were further sentenced to undergo RI for two years each with fine of Rs.3,000 each and in default to undergo SI for three months each. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Criminal Appeal No. 728 of 2008 is by Munshi Ram, Accused No. 1 (A-1) who was Sub Inspector (SI) in the Delhi Police (‘DP’) and Criminal Appeal No. 729 of 2008 is by Rohtash Kanwar, A-2 who was a Constable in the DP.
3. It requires to be noted that this Court by its order dated 4th September 2008 suspended the sentences of the Appellants during the pendency of these appeals.
4. The case of the prosecution is that the Complainant, Kanta Prasad Gautam (PW-8) was having a jewellery shop at P-2/201, Sultan Puri, Delhi. On 3rd October 2000 A-1 along with three police officials came to his shop and took him to PS Sultan Puri. One Ashok present with them stated that PW-8 had purchased stolen jewellery items from him. A-1 asked PW-8 to return the jewellery or give money in its place failing which A-1 would arrest PW-8. A-1 then demanded Rs.1 lakh from PW-8 and asked him to come on the following day with the money.
5. On the following day, i.e., 4th October 2000 PW-8 went to A-1 and requested him not to demand any bribe amount. Thereupon A-1is stated to have agreed to accept Rs.50,000. A-1 sent one Roop Chand (PW-6) to the house of PW-8. PW-6 went there and collected Rs.20,000 from Smt. Ram Shri (PW-2), the mother of PW-8. On 5th October 2000 one police official came to the house of PW-8 and called him to the PS. PW-8 went to PS in the evening when again A-1 stated to have demanded Rs.30,000 from PW-8 and upon request of PW-8 A-1 agreed to accept Rs.5,000. At that stage, PW-8, who was against giving of any further bribe, went to the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) at around 4 pm and got his complaint (Ex.PW-3/A) recorded by the Raid Officer (RO), Inspector Abhey Ram (PW-10) in the presence of panch witness Kamal Singh (PW-3) who was on duty at the ACB and at that time was an LDC in the office of the Commissioner of Industries, CPO building, Kashmiri Gate Delhi. PW-8 produced eight government currency (GC) notes of Rs.500 each and 10 GC notes of Rs.100 each. PW-10 noted their serial numbers in the pre-raid report (Ex. PW-3/B). Thereafter, PW-10 applied phenolphthalein powder to the said GC notes and gave a demonstration of its effect. He then handed over the treated GC notes to PW-8 who kept them in the left pocket of his shirt. Instructions were given to PW-3 to stay close to PW-8 and give a signal when the bribe money was handed over. The raiding party including PW-9, PW-8, PW-3 and PW-10 and certain others thereafter left for PS Sultan Puri.
6. According to PW-3, the raiding team reached there at about 7.30 pm. PW-3 along with PW-8 went inside the P.S. and the other members of the raiding took suitable positions outside the room on the first floor of the PS where the Appellants were sitting. A-1 asked PW-8 whether he had brought the bribe money to which PW-8 replied in the affirmative. Then A-1 asked A-2 to collect the bribe money from PW-8 and also asked PW-8 to bring Rs.5,000 more. Thereafter, PW-8 handed over those treated GC notes to A-2. At that stage PW-3 went outside and gave the pre-determined signal to the raiding party.
7. According to PW-3
