Back
2009 Supreme(HP) 320
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH, J.
STATE OF H.P.
Appellant
VERSUS
AJIT SINGH @ JEET RAM.
Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 179 of 2002
Decided on 10-4-2009
For the Appellant:Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. Advocate General. For the Respondent:Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate.
The need for corroboration of evidence from independent sources and the caution against convicting based on uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses.
Headnote:
Corruption - Acquittal Challenge - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7 and 13(2)
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was acquitted in a corruption case involving demands for bribes for correcting revenue entries. The prosecution alleged that the respondent demanded money and was caught accepting bribes, but the defense claimed the respondent was on leave at the time of the alleged incidents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was full of contradictions, and the presence of the respondent at the office on the relevant date was doubtful. The court noted that the recovery of currency notes from the respondent's pant could have been inserted and planted by someone else in his absence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the presence of the respondent at the office, and the authenticity of the recovery of currency notes from the respondent's pant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for corroboration of evidence from independent sources, especially when the witnesses are interested parties. It cited legal precedents requiring corroboration of uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice and cautioned against convicting without corroboration.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the respondent's acquittal, as the findings were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The bail bonds entered by the respondent were discharged.
Surinder Singh,J (Oral):- The State has challenged the acquittal of the respondent, passed in Corruption case No.8 of 1999, by the learned trial court, for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in short “the Act”.
2. In brief, the facts giving rise to the present case are that the respondent was posted as Kanungo in the office of Naib Tehsildar (Settlement) Mehatpur at Dehlan Patwar circle vide order Ex. PH. The complainant Subhash Chand was the owner of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1005/1006 which was earlier bearing Khasra No. 9447 in village Dehlan. The said land was entered in the name of Smt. Shibbo and her three sons and three daughters by the Revenue officials whereas Khasra No. 1005 was kept as “Abadi Deh”. PW-1, Subhash Chand requested the respondent for correcting the said entries. The respondent asked PW1 to bring the sale-deed and meet him after a week. After a couple of days later Subhash Chand came to the office of the respondent, Patwari Narinder Singh was also present there. The accused/ respondent retained a leaf of the sale deed on the pretext that it was required by him for effecting necessary entries. The applicant had also moved an application before the Naib Tehsildar (Settlement) Una, for seeking correction of revenue entries, which was sent to the respondent. The complainant again approached the respondent but he demanded some money for Sewa Pani. The complainant gave Rs. 50/- to the respondent. On 26th October, 1995 again, the complainant visited in the office of Kanungo. It is alleged that the respondent again demanded Rs. 200/- for Sewa Pani, at that time Narinder Singh aforesaid was also present.
3. On 26.10.1995, the complainant along with Surjit Singh, (PW-2) and Gurnam Singh went to the office of respondent. Sh. Narinder Singh Patwari was also present there. The respondent again demanded some money for Sewa Pani, but the respondent told him that he had no money and would come again at 12 O’clock. It was thereafter, the complainant along with Surjit Singh went to the office of the Anti Corruption Zone, Una and lodged FIR Ex. PA against the respondent narrating the entire facts to the Deputy Superintendent of Police.
4. Subhash Chand complainant handed over two currency notes of Rs.100/- Ex P-3 and Ex. P-4 to PW8 Dy. S.P. R.R. Bhatia. The currency notes were chemically treated with phenolphthalein powder and their numbers were noted on the memo Ex.PB. Thereafter Dy. S.P. made the demonstration and mixture of sodium carbonate was prepared separately and mixed, its colour turned pink. After giving him necessary instructions, Surjit Singh, PW-2 was directed to act as shadow witness by the said Deputy Superintendent of Police and instructed him to accompany Subhash Chand as a shadow witness. On paying bribe money to the respondent, he was asked to give a signal to the police by placing his hand over his head. Thereafter the complainant and Surjit Singh on the Scooter went to the office of the accused followed by the police party. The complainant asked the respondent about his work, the respondent again asked for Sewa Pani. Then complainant handed over the sum of Rs.200/- to the respondent, which was kept by him in the pocket of his pant, which he was wearing. Thereafter, Surjit Singh gave a signal to the police party and the Dy. S.P R.R. Bhatia came there and caught hold of the respondent from his wrists, arranged for a jug of water, two glass tumblers and a plate. The hand-wash of the respondent was taken in the plate and it was processed with mixture of sodium carbonate, when put together, the mixture turned pink. The pink mixture was filled in the nip Ex.P-1 and sealed with seal impression ‘Q’ and then taken in possession vide memo Ext. PC. Thereafter, at the instance of
police, Devinder Kumar Pradhan (not examined) who was with the raiding party recovered two currency notes of Rs.100/- Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 respectively from the ba
