Back
2010 Supreme(P&H) 2434
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Jitendra Chauhan, J.
Sunita Bakshi
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation
Criminal Appeal No. 614 of 2007,
Decided On : AUGUST 25, 2010
The main legal point established is the requirement for independent corroboration of the complainant's testimony and the shadow witness's testimony in bribery cases, as well as the necessity of proving demand and acceptance of gratification.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Conviction under Section 7 and Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) - [Section 7, Sections 13(1)(d), Section 13(2)] - The court acquitted the accused based on lack of evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe, absence of link evidence, and inconsistencies in witness statements.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted and sentenced for demanding a bribe from the complainant. The prosecution alleged that the accused threatened to implicate the complainant in a false case if the bribe was not paid.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence of demand of bribe other than the statement of the complainant. It also noted inconsistencies in witness statements and lack of link evidence. The court cited previous judgments to emphasize the need for independent corroboration of the complainant's testimony and the shadow witness's testimony.
Issues: The issues included lack of corroborative evidence, inconsistencies in witness statements, and absence of link evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for independent corroboration of the complainant's testimony and the shadow witness's testimony. It also highlighted the absence of demand and acceptance of gratification, lack of link evidence, and inconsistencies in witness statements.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the accused and dismissed the appeal filed by the CBI.
Jitendra Chauhan, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of two appeals i.e. Crl. Appeals No. 614-SB of 2007 and 1144-SB of 2009 as both of them have arisen out of a common judgment and order dated 10.3.2007 passed by the learned Court of Special Judge, Chandigarh (for short `the Trial Court). However, the facts are being taken from Crl. Appeal No. 614-SB of 2007.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.3.2007 passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short `the Act) and to pay a fine of Rs. 2500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and for the offence under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2500/- and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Both the sentences were order to run concurrently.
3. Brief facts of the case as projected by the prosecution are that on 12.5.2005, Zakir Hussain @ Sonu (hereinafter referred to the complainant) submitted a written complaint to SP/CBI/ACB, Chandigarh alleging that ASI Sunita Bakshi (hereinafter referred to the appellant) demanded bribe of Rs. 2,000/- from him for making a compromise between him and his-in-laws. The complainant further alleged that his father-in-law Chotte Ram, had made a complaint in Police Station, Manimajra, Chandigarh, against him on the allegation that he (complainant) had beaten him and his daughter Kiran. The appellant called the complainant on 11.5.2005 and demanded bribe of Rs. 2,000/- for effecting a compromise. The appellant threatened the complainant on the ground that if the said amount was not paid to her on 12.5.2005 by about 5/5.15 p.m., she would falsely implicate him in a false case and send him to jail on the basis of complaint filed against him by Chotte Lal, his father-in-law.
4. On the basis of complaint filed by the complainant, a case was registered by CBI and it was decided to lay a trap. A raiding team was constituted in which two independent witnesses, namely, Smt.Kishu Gupta, PW2 and Sh. Ramneesh Verma, PW3 both working as Inspectors, were also joined to assist the raiding party as independent witnesses. The complainant then produced five currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination each and three currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination each. The currency notes of Rs. 2,000/- duly smeared with phenolphthalein powder were kept in the left pocket of the shirt of the complainant. Smt. Kishu Gupta, PW2, was instructed to act as a shadow witness to accompany the complainant. She was further instructed to overhear the conversation between the complainant and the appellant and also to see the passing over of bribe amount.
5. Thereafter, the raiding team including the complainant and independent witnesses proceeded towards Police Station, Manimajra and reached near the police station at about 5.20 p.m. The complainant and Smt. Kishu Gupta were inside the police station and rest of the members of the raiding team remained present outside the police station. As the appellant was not present in the police station, the complainant made a call from his mobile to the mobile number of the appellant. The shadow witness Smt. Kishu Gupta, PW-2, overheard the complainant by saying "Aap Thodi Der Mein Pahuch Rahi Hain, Theek Hai, Jaisa Aap Kahain, Mai Do Hazar Rupaiy Head Constable Hussan Lal Ko Dai Deta Hoon." Then, the complainant and Smt. Kishu Gupta, PW-2, inquired about accused Head Constable Hussan Lal and met him, who told the complainant that he had been directed by the appellant to accept bribe money of Rs. 2,000/- from the complainant on her behalf. The complainant gave bribe amount of Rs. 2,000/- to him and he ac
