Back
1955 Supreme(Ori) 70
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
R.L.NARASIMHAM, J.
BIRANCHI NARAYAN MISRA - APPELLANT
Versus
THE STATE - RESPONDENT
Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 1955
Decided On : 11-10-1955
P.C. Chatterji, for the Appellant; G.B. Mohanti, for the Respondent
In cases involving bribery and corruption, the testimony of an accomplice requires adequate corroboration to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
BRIBERY - CORRUPTION - EVIDENCE - CORROBORATION - NECESSITY - SECTION 161 I.P.C. - CONVICTION SET ASIDE.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant, an orderly peon, was convicted u/s 161 I.P.C. for accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 65/- from Pareswar Sethi to influence the Taluq Magistrate in a criminal case against Pareswar. The prosecution relied on the testimony of Pareswar and two other witnesses, Tankadhar and Indramani, to prove the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of Pareswar, an accomplice, required adequate corroboration, which was lacking in this case. The court noted discrepancies in the testimonies of the three witnesses and the absence of independent corroboration, such as contemporaneous documents or the testimony of other material witnesses.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Pareswar Sethi handed over Rs. 65/- to the Appellant at the latter's request by way of illegal gratification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence of the three witnesses was insufficient to establish the Appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the need for corroboration of the accomplice's testimony and found that the prosecution had failed to provide such corroboration.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the Appellant.
JUDGMENT :
Narasimham, J. - This is an appeal against the judgment of the Special Judge, Bolangir, convicting the Appellant u/s 161 I.P.C. and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year.
2. Appellant Biranchi Narayan Misra was working as the Orderly Peon of the Taluq Magistrate at Birmaharajpur within Sonepur subdivision of the district of Bolangir from June 1950 to the end of August 1952. One Khetrabasi Mahanti was working during the said period as the Taluq Magistrate 1st class at Birmaharajpur. Both of them were sent up for trial for an offence u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947) on the ground that they habitually accepted illegal gratification. Five specific instances of acceptance of illegal gratification were mentioned in the charge, one of which was about their receiving Rs. 65/- from one Pareswar Sethi (P. W. 9). There was also a charge u/s 120B I.P.C. against both the Taluq Magistrate and his orderly peon. The trial was held in the Court of the Special Judge, Bolangir, who acquitted both of them of the charge u/s 120B I.P.C. He also acquitted the Taluq Magistrate of the charge u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. But so far as the Appellant was concerned, the learned Judge held that though the allegations in respect of four of the specific instances of receipt of illegal gratification Were not proved it was satisfactorily established that he accepted Rs. 65/- from Pareswar Sethi. He, therefore, reduced the offence of the Appellant to one u/s 161 I.P.C. and sentenced him to one year rigorous imprisonment.
3. To appreciate the case against the Appellant it is necessary to briefly refer to certain admitted facts. Pares war Sethi (P. W. 9) is a Dhobi of village Janakpur. One Bhanu Sethiani brought a case u/s 504 I.P.C. against him sometime in 1952 and that case was pending in the court of the Taluq Magistrate at Birmaharajpur. He had brought a counter case against Bhanu Sethiani which was, however, dismissed. One Tankadhar Karna (P. W. 10) of his village was his bailor in the case u/s 504 I.P.C. brought against him by Bhanu Sethiani. On one occasion Pareswar Sethi was unable to attend the court due to illness. His petition for adjournment was rejected and a non-bailable warrant was issued against him. Thereupon, he applied to the Sub-divisional Magistrate at Sonepur for transfer of the case from the file of the Birmaharajpur Magistrate; but that transfer petition was rejected by the then Sub-divisional Magistrate of Sonepur Mr. Suryanarayana (Ext. 19) on 14-7-52. The prosecution case is that soon after the rejection of the transfer petition the said Pareswar Sethi was advised by his lawyer Dhruba Tripathy to bring sufficient funds so as to enable him to apply for transfer of the case either at the district headquarters of Bolangir or at Cuttack. In pursuance of this advice the said Pareswar Sethi collected Rs. 60/- from his village and came to Birmaharajpur. It was alleged that the Appellant accosted him and suggested that instead of wasting money in fighting out the case at Bolangir and Cuttack he should pay Rs. 60/- to the Taluq Magistrate and that then he would be released. Pareswar however, felt somewhat suspicious and consulted two other co-villagers of his named Indramani Gadtia (P. W. 11) and Tankadhar Kama (P. W. 10). They both told him to do whatever he considered proper. It was then alleged that Pareswar paid Rs. 60/- to the Appellant who promised to hand it over to the Taluq Magistrate, and also paid Rs. 5/- to the Appellant for his share of the illegal gratification. Subsequently, Tankadhar refused to continue as a bailor for Pareswar and it was alleged that Appellant Biranchi himself fixed up one Ramprasad Hota of Laturpet as his bailor.
4. In the meantime several complaints against the corrupt activities of the Taluq Magistrate at Birmaharajpur had reached the ears of the Sub divisional Magistrate of Sonepur who made enquiries and got him suspended. Some other Magistr
