Back
2009 Supreme(HP) 228
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH, J.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Appellant
VERSUS
TILAK RAJ
Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2002
Decided on 30-03-2009.
For the Appellant:Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent:Mr. Paresh Sharma, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of sufficient evidence to prove the demand of bribe in corruption cases, and the importance of independent witnesses in supporting the prosecution's case.
Headnote:
Corruption - Acquittal Appeal - Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS REFERENCED AND DISCUSSED: The court discussed the provisions of Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act, which deal with the offence of bribery and criminal misconduct by a public servant. The court analyzed the elements of the offences and the burden of proof required to establish the commission of the offences. The interpretation of the demand of bribe and the lack of evidence to prove the same were crucial in the court's decision to dismiss the appeal.]
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a Patwari, was acquitted in a corruption case where he was accused of demanding a bribe for providing a copy of jamabandi. The prosecution's case relied on the complainant's testimony and evidence of a trap set by the Anti-Corruption Unit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe by the respondent, and there were contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses. The court also noted the lack of independent witnesses in the trap set by the Anti-Corruption Unit.
Issues: The key issues included the credibility of the complainant's testimony, the sufficiency of evidence to prove the demand of bribe, and the conduct of the Anti-Corruption Unit in setting the trap.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence to establish the demand of bribe and the presence of contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. The court also emphasized the importance of independent witnesses in corruption cases.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent's acquittal was upheld due to the failure of the prosecution to prove the demand of bribe and the presence of contradictions in the testimonies.
Kuldip Singh, Judge:-The respondent was tried by the learned Special Judge, Una in Corruption case No. 4 of 1999 and acquitted him on 18.10.2001 and therefore, the State has filed this appeal for setting-aside the acquittal of respondent.
2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent was appointed as Patwari vide order Ex. PE dated13.3.1992 and vide order Ex.P-G, he was posted as Patwari at Tahliwal Uperala. The further case of the prosecution is that the father of the complainant Jarnail Singh PW-7 had some land dispute with one Amar Chand and, therefore, the complainant wanted a copy of jamabandi of that land which was situated in Patwar Circle, Tahliwal Uperala. PW-7 Jarnail Singh on 7.4.1996 went to respondent and requested him to supply a copy of jamabandi, but respondent asked him for ‘seva pani’. He demanded Rs.200/- as illegal gratification but complainant gave him Rs.100/-. On 8.4.1996, complainant along with Ranbir Singh again went to respondent in the morning and at that time also, the respondent demanded Rs.100/- bribe from him. Thereafter, the complainant and Ranbir Singh came to the office of Anti Corruption Zone Una and complainant lodged FIR Ex.PJ.
3. The complainant Jarnail Singh handed over two currency notes of Rs.50/- each Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4 to Dy.S.P. PW-9 which were treated by police with phenolphethalein powder. The Dy.S.P. also told the functioning of phenolphethalein powder and sodium carbonate powder. The treated currency notes were put in the shirt pocket of the complainant and he was asked not to touch the same and to give the same to respondent on demand. Ranbir Singh was made shadow witness. He was instructed to give signal to the police on passing over of the amount to the respondent. The proceedings were recorded in the shape of memo Ex.PK.
4. On instructions received from the police, the complainant and Ranbir Singh went with the police party from Una to Tahliwal Uperala, they were dropped on the way. Thereafter, both of them proceeded to Patwarkhana on a scooter at about 1.00 p.m. on 8.4.1996.
5. The complainant met respondent and asked him about the copy of jamabandi, he was told by the respondent that the copy had not been prepared. The respondent asked the complainant to arrange forms for the same. The complainant handed over currency notes Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4 to respondent who put them in the pocket of his pant Ex.P-5. The complainant then signaled to the police and police party reached there, PW-8 Niranjan Singh, Up-Pradhan was called by the police. The currency notes Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4 were recovered from pant Ex.P-5 and their numbers were tallied with the numbers of currency notes mentioned in Ex.PK and were found to be the same. The currency notes were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PN and were sealed with seal ‘B’ in an envelope Ex.PL.
6. The hands of the respondent were washed and hand wash was collected in a plate. Sodium carbonate mixture was prepared separately. The collected hand wash and sodium carbonate mixture were mixed together, its colour turned pink which was put into nip Ex.P-1 and was sealed with seal ‘B’. The nip Ex.P-1 was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PP. The pocket wash of pant Ex.P-5 was also taken separately and it was also mixed with sodium carbonate mixture which turned pink and was collected in nip Ex.P-2 and sealed with seal ‘B’. The nip Ex.P-2 was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PO. Pant Ex.P-5 was also taken into possession.
7. PW-9 R. R. Bhatia conducted the investigation, site plan of Patwarkhana of Tahliwal Uperala was prepared. Jamabandies Ex.PA and Ex.PB were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PC from Ranjit Singh. The appointment and posting orders of the respondent were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PD from Jagdish Chand. The posting order Ex.PG was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PH from PW-5 Harbans Lal. The nips Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 were sent for chemical analysis by MHC Sirikant through Constable PW-3 Dharam Pal. On 22.4.1996
