Back
2012 Supreme(HP) 519
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Surinder Singh, J.
Piar Singh - Appellant.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent.
Cr. Appeal No. 39 of 2012.
Decided On : 6th November, 2012.
For the appellant :Mr. A.K. Pathania, Advocate.
For the respondent:Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General.
In corruption cases, whenever the evidence of the complaint creates reasonable doubt, the doubt has to be resolved in favor of the accused. Major and material contradictions in the statements of witnesses raised a presumption that the trap was designed only to implicate the accused.
Headnote:
Corruption - Conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) - Summary of Acts and Sections: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(2), 13(i)(d) - The court analyzed the evidence and found major and material contradictions in the statements of the official and trap witnesses, as well as the complainant and another witness, raising a presumption that the trap was designed only to implicate the accused. The court held that in corruption cases, whenever the evidence of the complaint creates reasonable doubt, the doubt has to be resolved in favor of the accused. The judgment of conviction and sentence was quashed and set aside, and the accused was acquitted for the offenses charged, giving him the benefit of reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Patwari in the Revenue department, was convicted and sentenced for offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that the appellant demanded and accepted bribe money from a complainant in exchange for facilitating compensation and providing revenue papers. The defense argued that the prosecution evidence exhibited material contradictions and failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe.
Finding of the Court:
The court found major and material contradictions in the statements of the official and trap witnesses, as well as the complainant and another witness, raising a presumption that the trap was designed only to implicate the accused. The court held that in corruption cases, whenever the evidence of the complaint creates reasonable doubt, the doubt has to be resolved in favor of the accused. The judgment of conviction and sentence was quashed and set aside, and the accused was acquitted for the offenses charged, giving him the benefit of reasonable doubt.
Issues: The issues revolved around the demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused, the credibility of the prosecution evidence, and the presumption of innocence in corruption cases.
Ratio Decidendi: In corruption cases, whenever the evidence of the complaint creates reasonable doubt, the doubt has to be resolved in favor of the accused. Major and material contradictions in the statements of witnesses raised a presumption that the trap was designed only to implicate the accused.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and sentence was quashed and set aside, and the accused was acquitted for the offenses charged, giving him the benefit of reasonable doubt.
SURINDER SINGH, J.
In the present appeal filed by the convict, a Patwari in the Revenue department, challenge has been laid to his conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, in Corruption Case No.4 of 2010, decided on 6.1.2012, for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in short “the Act”, whereby he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 7 and for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2500/- under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of the Act with the default clauses. Both the sentences aforesaid have been ordered to run concurrently. The period of detention, if any, was ordered to be set off under Section 428 of the Code.
2. The broad essential facts of the prosecution case as emerges from the evidence on record are stated thus. The appellant, hereinafter referred to “the accused”, was Patwari posted in Patwar Circle Ghial (Namhol), Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P.
(ii) PW6 Ramesh Chand resident of village Behli of the said Patwar circle was a PWD labourer. In the year 2009, his two cowsheds got damaged due to heavy rains. The accused prepared the case for providing compensation to him and PW6 aforesaid got relief of Rs.5,000/- paid in two installments from Tehsil office, Bilaspur.
(iii) On 8.12.2009, complainant Ramesh Chand is alleged to have visited Patwarkhana and asked the accused to issue revenue papers as he was to apply for bank loan for the re-construction of his cowsheds. The accused reminded him of the recommendations made by him to get relief amount, thus demanded Rs.1500/- from the relief amount received by the complainant, in addition also raised a demand of Rs.500/- for supply of the revenue papers as asked for.
(iv) It is alleged that PW6 Ramesh Chand disclosed about the aforesaid demand raised by the accused to his friend PW7 Gulaba Ram of his own village. For next two days, nothing was done by them, but on 10.12.2009, at about 7.30 a.m., PW6 filed a complaint Ext.PW6/A to PW9 Dy.S.P. Paras Ram in Vigilance Police Station, Bilaspur, on the basis of which FIR Ext.PW9/A was registered for the above offences after making endorsement Ext.PW9/B there upon and constituted a trap party under the supervision of PW12 Inspector Smt. Chandra and the case file was handed over to her.
(v) PW12 Inspector Chandra constituted a raiding party by associating Inspectors Mehar Chand, Vinod Kumar, S.I. Lachhman Dass, constables PW1 Madan Lal, Dharam Chand and PW10 HHC Sohan Lal. She gave demo to PW6 Ramesh Chand and PW7 Gulaba Ram, as to how the powders of sodium carbonate and Phenolphthalein when mixed together react and turned its colour into pink. Thereafter the light pink demo-solution was put into nip Ext.P1 and sealed with seal impression “P” and taken into possession vide memo Ext.PW1/A. Seal after its use was handed over to PW7 Gulaba Ram.
(vi) Thereafter, PW6 Ramesh Chand handed over four currency notes of Rs.500/-denomination each to Inspector Chandra. Their serial numbers were noted down, memo was prepared and then treated with Phenolphthalein powder. These were handed over to the complainant with a direction to keep them in safe custody and not to shake hands with anyone, but to hand over the treated currency notes on demand to the accused.
(vii) The complainant put the currency notes in the left side pocket of his shirt. A memo Ext.PW1/B to this effect was prepared in the presence of the witnesses, duly signed by them.
(viii) PW7 Gulaba Ram was made a shadow witness and directed to hear the conversation between the accused and the complainant and give signal to the raiding party when the currency notes would be handed over to the accused. Thus, both of them were sent to Patwarkhana, Namhol, in advance, followed by police raiding party headed by PW12 Inspector Chandra in office Vehicle N
