Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 1678
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
Harish Kumar & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.A. 1222/2011, 1225/2011 & Crl. MA 4908/2012
Decided On : 06-04-2016
Mr. Ashok Soni & Mr. S.S. Chugh, Advocates
Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State
The burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt lies with the prosecution, and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt if foundational facts are not established.
Headnote:
POC Act - Conviction under Section 7, 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the POC Act, 1988 r/w Section 120B of IPC - [POC Act, 1988, Section 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2), 120B]
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the appellant demanded a bribe from the complainant for releasing his vehicle and kept the complainant's driving license and mobile phone until the bribe was paid. A trap was laid, and the accused were apprehended by the raiding party.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted discrepancies in the testimonies and lack of corroboration from independent sources, leading to doubts about the events as narrated by the prosecution witnesses.
Issues: The issues revolved around the demand of bribe, acceptance, and recovery of the amount, as well as the knowledge and involvement of the accused in the alleged bribery.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt lies upon the prosecution. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence is not reliable. The accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt if foundational facts are not established by the prosecution.
Final Decision: The court acquitted both appellants of the alleged offences due to the prosecution's failure to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sunita Gupta, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 20th August, 2011 passed by the Special Judge (PC Act)-06, Tis Hazari, Delhi in CC No.185/09 vide which appellant Sahib Singh was convicted under Section 7, 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the POC Act, 1988 r/w Section 120B of IPC and accused Harish guilty under Section 7 of POC, 1988 Act r/w Section 120B of IPC and order on sentence dated 8th September, 2011 vide which both the appellants were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year with fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of 3 months, separate appeals bearing nos. 1225/2011 and 1222/2011 have been preferred by them.
2. During the pendency of the appeal, Sahib Singh expired on 10th December, 2012 and vide order dated 15th April, 2013, his legal heirs were allowed to continue with the appeal to be decided on merits.
3. Succinctly stated, prosecution case is as follows:-
On 6th May, 2005, complainant Somi, S/o Chander Bhan came to Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi and gave a statement alleging inter alia that on 5th May, 2005, he along with his cousin brother Raj Kumar was going to Clock Tower, Shakti Nagar from Lal Bagh, Azad Pur on a two wheeler scooter bearing No. DL 8 5C 9216. At Check Post near ganda nala, his scooter was stopped by Sahib Singh who asked for the documents of the scooter including pollution certificate. Since he was not having the pollution certificate, Sahib Singh told him that his vehicle will be impounded. He pleaded that he was a poor man, thereupon Sahib Singh demanded Rs.100/- for releasing the vehicle, however, he was not having Rs.100/-. Therefore, his driving licence as well as mobile make garud bearing No.20572030 belonging to Raj Kumar was kept by him and he was asked to pay Rs.100/- on 6th May, 2005 at 4:00 p.m. and then take back the driving licence as well as mobile. He was further asked to give the amount to a shopkeeper near the picket and to take back the licence. Sahib Singh would take bribe through that shopkeeper, however, he is against paying any bribe, therefore, he prayed for action. Statement of the complainant Ex.PW4/A was recorded by PW7-ACP then Inspector B.S. Yadav in the presence of panch witness-Mahesh Kumar. The complainant had brought one GC note of Rs.100/- which was handed over to him and he recorded its serial number in the pre-raid report Ex.PW4/B. Phenolphthalein powder on those GC notes was applied by Sh. B.S. Yadav and demonstration was given to the panch witness and the complainant by touching the right hand of panch witness with those treated GC notes and his wash of right hand in the solution of Sodium Carbonate was taken which turned into pink. Thereafter hands of panch witness were got washed with the soap and that solution was thrown away. The GC note was given to the complainant who kept the same in the pocket of his shirt. Panch witness was instructed to remain close to the complainant and to overhear the conversation and after being satisfied that bribe had actually been given, panch witness was asked to give a signal by putting his hand over his head. The complainant was also instructed to remain close to panch witness in such a manner that he could be able to see the transaction and hear the conversation and give the bribe money on specific demand. On the same day, at about 3:45 pm, Inspector B.S. Yadav along with the complainant, panch witness, Inspector K.S. Pathak, Sub-Inspector Sumer Singh along with 3 or 4 other members of raiding party left Anti-Corruption Branch for Gur Mandi Ganda Nala, Model Town in a government vehicle and reached there at about 4:00 pm. The government vehicle was left at the gate of Gur Mandi and Inspector K.S. Pathania remained in that vehicle. Complainant and panch witness were reminded about the instructions given to them in pre-raid proceedings and they were sent towards police picket Ganda Nala, Gur Mandi. Inspector B.S. Yadav along with members of rai
