SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(HP) 207

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rajiv Sharma, J.
Ram Rattan - Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 48 of 2013
Decided on: 26.3. 2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Anoop Chitkara, Advocate vice Mr. J.R. Poshwal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Dy. A.G.

The insufficiency of mere recovery of money as evidence and the requirement to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:

Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 7, Section 13 (2)

Fact of the Case:

The accused was charged with demanding and accepting a bribe for issuing a certificate. The prosecution presented witnesses and evidence to support the allegations.

Finding of the Court:

The court found contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence, including witness testimonies and procedural irregularities. The court also cited a Supreme Court case to emphasize the insufficiency of mere recovery of money as evidence.

Issues: The key issues included the credibility of witness testimonies, the absence of independent witnesses, and procedural discrepancies in the case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting inconsistencies in witness testimonies and procedural lapses.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment of conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused was acquitted due to the prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Sharma, J.

This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 22.2.2013 rendered by the Special Judge, Solan in Corruption Case No. 1-S/7 of 2012, whereby the appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as the “accused” for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under section 7 and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’), has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for two months under Section 7 of the Act and he was also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for six months under Section 13 (2) of the Act.

2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that son of PW-1 Surender Singh was injured by one Mohan Singh by firing a gunshot in his leg. Mohan Singh used to threaten the complainant and his family members. In order to safeguard himself and his family members, complainant wanted to have a revolver and for this purpose, he was required to know handling of the fire arm. The complainant came to know that Commander Home Guard will give certificate to this effect. Thus on 9.5.2011, he visited the office of the Accused at Nalagarh along-with application Ext. PG. The complainant was told by the accused that he would issue certificate to him subject to some ‘Sewa Paani’. Complainant assured the accused to do his work and that he would see this aspect. On 11.5.2011, complainant contacted the accused on telephone. The accused told him that his work has been done. He demanded Rs.1,000/-. Complainant told accused that he would come to his office on 13.5.2011. Complainant did not want to give bribe. He was told on 13.5.2011 by some person to report the matter to vigilance officials. He was told that Vigilance Officers were present in the rest house. He went to the rest house alongwith PW-2 Amarjeet and PW-3 Dhiraj Kumar. He met PW-3 Ramesh Sharma, the then Deputy S.P., SV & ACB Solan. He handed over the application /complaint Ext. PA to him. He after, making endorsement, sent the same to the police station through PW-6 HHC Balbir Singh. FIR Ext. PW-10/A was registered by PW-10 Inspector Deep Ram. The raiding party was constituted. Complainant Surender Singh produced two currency notes each of Rs.500/- denomination to the police through PW-2 Amarjeet Singh. The currency notes were treated with Phenolphthalein powder. The same were handed over to Amarjeet. He put the currency notes in the pocket of the shirt of the complainant. Amarjeet Singh was directed to dip his fingers in a solution of sodium carbonate and its colour changed to pink. PW-2 Amarjeet was asked to remain in close vicinity of the complainant and to give signal to the trap party after the bribe money was given to the accused by the complainant. Predemonstration memo Ext. PB was prepared. The members of the trap party proceeded to the office of accused and they reached there at 5.15 pm. Complainant and shadow witness PW-2 Amarjeet Singh went ahead, whereas remaining members of the trap party remained behind. The complainant met the accused outside his office. The office was locked. The complainant enquired from the accused about his work. Accused replied that it has been done. Thereafter, accused handed over certificate Ext. PE to the complainant. He handed over Rs.1000/- to the accused. He put the currency notes in a diary on which signal was given by the complainant to the shadow witness and he further gave signal to the remaining members of the trap party. The Vigilance Officials arrested the accused. The key of office room of the accused was procured from Home Guard personnel and office room was got opened. Thereafter, the hand wash of the accused was conducted with plain water in a plate, whose colour did not change. Thereafte


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top