1993 Supreme(Raj) 715
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
R.S.Verma, J.
Amar Nath - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 252 of 1980.
Decided On : 28-09-1993
The testimony of partisan witnesses cannot be used to corroborate each other, and a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible in evidence.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - CORRUPTION - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - SECTION 5(1)(D)(2) - DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE - EVIDENCE - CORROBORATION - INDEPENDENT WITNESSES - TESTIMONY OF PARTISAN WITNESSES - ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSION - SECTION 8 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Amar Nath, was convicted of offences under sections 161, 163, IPC, and section 5(i)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 900 from Ripudaman Singh in exchange for an early electric connection. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, an Upper Division Clerk in the Rural Subdivision office of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB), had demanded the bribe on 12-5-77 and that Ripudaman Singh had paid Rs. 450 on that date and was to pay the remaining Rs. 450 after the connection was installed. However, the connection was not installed despite requests, and Ripudaman Singh approached the Anti-Corruption Department on 30-6-77. A trap was arranged, and the appellant was caught red-handed receiving the remaining Rs. 450 from Ripudaman Singh.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that the testimony of Ripudaman Singh, Babulal (the Additional S.P. of the Anti-Corruption Department), and Peera Ram (a police constable) was not corroborated by any independent witnesses. The court also found that the appellant's explanation that Ripudaman Singh had forcibly thrust the currency notes into his pocket was supported by the testimony of Shiv Hari, an employee of the RSEB, and Radhey Shyam, a defense witness.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the testimony of partisan witnesses could be used to corroborate each other. 3. Whether the appellant's confession to Babulal was admissible in evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that the testimony of Ripudaman Singh, Babulal, and Peera Ram was not corroborated by any independent witnesses. The court also found that the appellant's explanation that Ripudaman Singh had forcibly thrust the currency notes into his pocket was supported by the testimony of Shiv Hari and Radhey Shyam. 2. The court held that the testimony of partisan witnesses could not be used to corroborate each other. The court noted that Ripudaman Singh, Babulal, and Peera Ram were all interested in the success of the prosecution's case, and therefore their testimony could not be relied upon to support each other's claims. 3. The court held that the appellant's confession to Babulal was inadmissible in evidence. The court noted that the confession was made to a police officer and was therefore hit by the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
JUDGMENT
1. - The learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption), Bikaner has convicted Amar Nath of offences Os 161 163, IPC and of offence under section 5 (i) (d) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the Act'). He has sentenced the appellant with R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for three months for offence under section 161. IPC for offence under section 163, IPC, he has sentenced the appellant to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R I. for one month; and for offence under section 5 (i) (d) (2) of the Act, he has sentenced the appellant to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for six months. He has directed all the sentences to run concurrently. Aggrieved, Amar Nath has filed this appeal.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that PW 5 Ripudaman Singh is a resident of village 21 M.L He had an agricultural field in the said village with a tube well appurtenant thereto. Initially a motor of 30 H.P. was fitted at his tube well but he found the same to be expensive and got the same disconnected. lie, thereafter fitted a mono block motor of IS H.P. and applied for grant of fresh ,connection of 15 H.P. This application was moved before the Rural subdivision office of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (for short. RSEB') at Sri Ganganagar on 6.4 1977. He deposited a sum of Rs. 1853/ as security on 12.5-77 in this connection The case of the prosecution is that appellant Arnar Nath was Upper Division Clerk in the said office of R S.E B., Sri Ganganagar. It was the appellant who got Ripudaman Singh to fill the application form. He was also in charge of the relevant record pertaining to electricity connections in the said office.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 12-5-77 appellant told Ripudaman Singh that if he wanted electric connection at an early date. he shall have to pay Rs. 1000/ to the concerned Junior Engineer (for short 'J. En and Assistant Engineer (for 'short A. En') Appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 1000/- on this account. It is alleged that there was sonic bargaining between the appellant and Ripudaman Singh and the appellant is said to have agreed to payment of Rs. 9( 0'- It is alleged that Ripudaman. Singh paid a sum of Rs 450/-. to the appellant on 12-5-77 and a sum of Rs. 450/- was to he raid after the electric connection had beer-installed
4. The case of the prosecution is that necessary electric connection was not installed inspire of requests and Ripudaman Singh went to the appellant on 27-6-77. On that day appellant asked Ripudaman Singh to make payment of balance of Rs. 450/- but Ripudaman Singh told him that he would make this payment after he had sold his wheat-crop. The case of the prosecution is that Ripudaman Singh approached Shri Babulal Addl. S P. of Anti Corruption Department (for short .A.0 D.') on :0-6.7 and submitted a detailed report Ex. P. 15 detailing the circumstances under which the money was being demanded from him, On this written report Sbri Babulal arranged for a trap. He procured presence of PW Bakhtawar Singh and PW 2 Dasrath Kumar. In the presence of these witnesses Shri Babulal got applied phenolphthlein powder to a paper by Shri Peera Ram. He procured one glass of water and added one spoon of Sodilm Carbonate to the water. Peera Ram was made to put his hand in ibis watery solution which turned pink. This demonstration was given with a view to explain the effect of such a solution to witnesses Dashrath Kmar and Bakhtawar Singh. A memo Ex. P. 1 was prepared in this regard. The complainant Ripudaman Singh was asked to produce currency notes Rs. 450/-, bearing Nos. 6AD390697, AE/14 719684, AE/20 397307 and AD/E0 835950 each ore hundred rupee and five currency note of Rs. 10/-each bearing numbers 03E 108820, 2.1B 310353. 42B 682798, 25K 240257 and 7IG 835
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
