Delhi District Court
1. Nepal Singh Rawal vs Cbi, 2011 (4) C. C. Cases (Hc) 41. on 24 February, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. N. K. SHARMA, SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC ACT)-02 DELHI.
RC No. 6(A)/2004
CC No. 08/05
CBI
VS
1. VIKRAM SINGH,
ZO/ASI,
S/O SH. KALU RAM,
R/O 31A, POLICE COLONY,
MODEL TOWN, DELHI.
2. VIKRAM SINGH,
CONSTABLE,
S/O LATE SH. KHEM SINGH,
R/O D52, NEW POLICE LINE,
K.W. CAMP, DELHI.
Date of Institution : 28.05.2005.
Date of Arguments : 21.01.2012.
Date of Judgment : 31.01.2012.
1 of 50
2
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment will dispose off the CBI criminal case referred to herein above filed by the CBI on 28.05.2005.
2. Briefly stated, this case was registered on 07.02.2004 under Section 7 of PC Act, 1988 on the basis of written complaint lodged by complainant Satish Kumar Gupta alleging harassment by the Traffic Police on road while he plies his public transport vehicles and that on 07.02.2004, Vikram Singh, ASI and Vikram Singh, constable, both of Delhi Traffic Police, demanded bribe of Rs.100/ as entry for allowing the vehicle to ply through Kodia Pul Bus Stand and they also threatened to challan the vehicle if the bribe money was not paid by 08.02.2004.
3. Investigation further revealed that complainant Satish Kumar Gupta was not willing to pay the bribe and hence he made a written 2 of 50 3 complaint in the O/O Supdt. Of Police, CBI, ACB, New Delhi. The case was entrusted to Inspector H. K. Lal for laying a trap and trap team was constituted. Inspector H. K. Lal secured the presence of the two independent witnesses namely Suresh Kumar UDC, House Tax Green Park MCD and Jitender Bhardwaj, UDC, House Tax MCD, Lajpat Nagar. In their presence, the pre trap formalities including treatment of GC notes of Rs.100/ produced by the complainant, was done with phenolphthalein powder and the proceedings were recorded in the Handing Over Memo dated 08.02.2004 which was prepared in the office of complainant at B4, Main Wazirabad Road, New Delhi. The complainant was also given a Samsung digital recorder with the direction to switch it on before contacting the accused persons.
4. Investigation further revealed that thereafter, all the trap team member including independent witnesses and complainant boarded the vehicle RTV No. DL1VA2309 of the complainant and reached near 3 of 50 4 RR Office Bus Stand at Kodia Pul, where it was again stopped by constable Vikram Singh. On this complainant alongwith his driver Parshuram alighted from the bus and walked towards the said police officials. Shadow witness was directed by Inspector H. K. Lal to remain in the vehicle and watch the transaction, which was visible from the bus to avoid any doubt in the mind of accused persons.
5. Investigation further revealed that when the complainant approached ASI Vikram Singh and took out Rs.100/ (the tainted money), then ASI Vikram Singh directed towards constable Vikram Singh and asked to deliver the same to him. The CFSL has given positive opinion on the voices during the said conversation. On the direction of ASI Vikram Singh, constable Vikram Singh accepted the bribe amount of Rs.100/ through his right hand and after passing it into his left hand kept the same in left side pant pocket. Thereafter, constable Vikram Singh made entry in pocket diary produced by 4 of 50 5 complainant Satish Kumar Gupta. The CFSL opinion on his handwriting regarding the said entry is positive.
6. Investigation further revealed that on prefixed signal given by the complainant after completion of their aforesaid transaction, Inspector H. K. Lal and other team members rushed towards the accused persons and challenged them for having demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.100/ from the complainant. Both the accused persons became nervous and kept mum.
7. Investigation further revealed that the left and right hand wash of accused Vikram Singh Constable were taken in colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate separately, which turned pink. Thereafter, the tainted money was recovered from his left side pant pocket by recovery witness Jitender Bhardwaj. The wash of inner lining of the left side pant pocket was also taken, which also gave pink colour. The washes obtained during the course of recovery was forwarded to CFSL for 5 of 50 6 chemical examination and CFSL has given positive opinion about the presence of phenolphthalein powder in the solution marked RHW, LHW & LSPPW vide its report no. CFSL2004/C0194 dated 18.03.2004.
8. The investigation established that Constable Vikram Singh, and ASI Vikram Singh were detailed for duty on Chatta Rail on 07.02.2004 and 08.02.2004 and both were on duty when they demanded and accepted the bribe from the complainant. Further the aforesaid conversation and transactions clearly establish that ASI Vikram Singh and Constable Vikram Singh have connived with each other for demanding and accepting the bribe from the complainant Satish Kumar Gupta for showing favour to run RTV bearing no. DL1VA2309 from Kodia Pul.
9. According to the prosecution, the above facts disclosed commission of offences punishable under Section 120B of IPC r/w Section 7 Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of 6 of 50 7 Corruption Act, 1988 on the part of both the accused persons and substantive offences u/s 7 and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
10. The sanction for prosecution of the accused persons was obtained from the Competent Authority and pursuant thereto, the charge sheet was submitted in the Court.
11. Copies required under Section 207 Cr. P. C. supplied to accused persons. After hearing the arguments, learned Predecessor vide order dated 13.12.2005 framed charge against the accused persons jointly under Section 120B of IPC read with Section 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act and also separately against the respective accused persons under Section 7 of the PC Act and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, hence this trial.
7 of 50 8
12. In support of its case the CBI examined the following witnesses: PW1 Dr. Rajinder Singh, Principal Scientific Officer and HOD Physics, CFSL, New Delhi identified the voice of accused Vikram Singh, ASI vide his report Ex. PW1/A. PW2 Deepak R. Handa, Sr. Scientific Officer GradeII, CFSL, New Delhi deposed that the documents ie. Diary Ex. PW2/A, one slip Ex. PW2/B, Specimen writing of constable Vikram Singh Ex. PW2/C1 to Ex. PW2/C7 and specimen writing of ASI Vikram Singh Ex. PW2/D1 to Ex. PW2/D7 of the case were sent to him for examination on 16.04.2004 and he has given his opinion dated 04.06.2004, in which he opined that certain similarities in the detail execution of strokes comprising the letter and numeral are found similar between between Q1 and S1 to S7 and for thorough scientific examination and also for a definite opinion few specimen writing of constable Vikram Singh is 8 of 50 9 required and further material was sent for examination on 24.08.2004, which are Ex. PW2/E1 to Ex. PW2/E10 and submitted opinion dated 21.10.2004 in which the documents were examined with various scientific aids like Video Spectral Comparator, Microscope, Magnifying Glass and submitted his opinion that handwriting evidence points to the writer of writing the specimen English Writing marked S1 to S7 and S15 to S24 being the person responsible for writing the question writing Ex. PW2/A. His reports are Ex. PW2/F and Ex. PW2/G. PW3 Mukesh Kumar Meena, DIG, Daman, identified his signatures on Sanction Ex. PW3/A dated 11.04.2005 of prosecution for launching prosecution against accused ASI Vikram Singh. He further identified his signatures on Sanction Ex. PW3/B dated 11.04.2005 of prosecution for launching prosecution against accused Constable Vikram Singh.
PW4 C. L. Bansal, Retired SSO (Chemistry), CFSL proved 9 of 50 10 his report Ex. PW4/A vide which he has examined three sealed bottles. He has opined that Exhibits RHW, LHW and LSPPW gave positive tests for the presence of Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate.
PW5 Satish Kumar Gupta, the complainant, proved his Complaint Ex. PW5/A, his signatures on Handing Over Memo Ex. PW5/B as well as on Tape Recorder Handing Over Memo Ex. PW5/C, his signatures on Recovery Memo Ex. PW5/D. He also identified the diary Ex. PW5/E and the entry Ex. PW5/E1 made by accused no. 2 in the diary Ex. PW5/E. He also identified his signatures on Voice Identification Memo Ex. PW5/F. He also identified his signatures on photostate copies of permit of his vehicle Ex. PW5/G, Certificate of fitness Ex. PW5/G1, Insurance Policy Ex. PW5/G2 and driving licence of Parshuram Ex. PW5/G3.
PW6 Inspector Parvesh Chobey, identified his signatures on attested copy of duty roaster Ex. PW6/A dated 07.02.2004 and Ex.
10 of 50 11 PW6/B dated 08.02.2004 of traffic circle Kotwali. He also identified his signatures on Briefing report vide DD no. 2 dated 08.02.2004 Ex. PW6/C. PW7 Jitender Bhardwaj, Independent Witness, identified his signatures on Document Ex. PW2/B, Handing Over Memo Ex. PW5/B as well as on Tape Recorder Handing Over Memo Ex. PW5/C, his signatures on Recovery Memo Ex. PW5/D, on Voice Identification Memo Ex. PW5/F. He also identified the diary Ex. PW5/E. He also identified his signatures on Rough Site Plan Ex. PW7/A, Specimen Voice Recording Memo Ex. PW7/B, Pocket Diary Ex. PW7/C, Transcription Ex. PW7/D, Transcription Memo Ex. PW7/E. PW8 Subhash Chand identified his signatures on Recovery Memo Ex. PW5/D dated 08.02.2004.
PW9 Suresh Kumar, the Shadow Witness proved his signatures on Document Ex. PW2/B, on Handing Over Memo Ex.
11 of 50 12 PW5/B as well as on Tape Recorder Handing Over Memo Ex. PW5/C, his signatures on Recovery Memo Ex. PW5/D, on Voice Identification Memo Ex. PW5/F. He has also identified the diary Ex. PW5/E. He also identified his signatures on Rough Site Plan Ex. PW7/A, Specimen Voice Recording Memo Ex. PW7/B, Pocket Diary Ex. PW7/C, Transcription Ex. PW7/D, Transcription Memo Ex. PW7/E. PW10 Inspector Karan Arya, (Earlier Known as H. K. Lal), Trap Laying Officer, proved the FIR Ex. PW10/A. He also identified his signatures on Handing Over Memo Ex. PW5/B as well as on Tape Recorder Handing Over Memo Ex. PW5/C, his signatures on Recovery Memo Ex. PW5/D, He also identified his signatures on Rough Site Plan Ex. PW10/B (already exhibited as Ex. PW7/A).
PW11 Inspector Prem Nath was detained by the PW10 Inspector Karan Arya, for purpose of laying trap. He identified his signatures on Handing Over Memo Ex. PW5/B as well as on Tape 12 of 50 13 Recorder Handing Over Memo Ex. PW5/C, his signatures on Recovery Memo Ex. PW5/D, Specimen Voice Recording Memo Ex. PW7/B. PW12 Inspector Ajeet Singh, was the Investigation Officer w.e.f. 26.02.2004 to 26.10.2004. He was authorized by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 26.02.2004 to investigate this case on the application moved under Section 17 of the PC Act, 1988, Ex. PW12/A by branch for permission to investigate the case.
He has further stated that during the course of investigation, he examined the witnesses i.e. Complainant Satish Kumar, driver Parshu Ram, independent witness Jitender Kumar and Suresh Kumar and CBI Officials Inspector H. K. Lal and Prem Nath and recorded their statements. He also collected the CFSL report dated 18.03.2004 Ex. PW4/ A and another CFSL report dated 04.06.2004 Ex. PW2/F and another CFSL reference dated 26.04.2004 Ex. PW1/A. He also collected the specimen writing S1 to S7 of Constable Vikram Singh 13 of 50 14 S/o Late Khem Singh Ex. PW2/C1 to Ex. PW2/C7, which were obtained in the presence of independent witnesses.
PW12 has also identified his signatures on S15 to S24 i.e. Ex. PW2/E1 to Ex. PW2/E10. He has further identified his signatures on specimen writing S8 to S14 Ex. PW2/D1 to Ex. PW2/D7 of accused ASI Vikram Singh S/o Sh. Kalu Ram. He has further stated that he recorded the statement of Pravesh Choubey, the then Traffic Inspector, Kotwali Circle, Delhi Police, from whom he had taken the document mentioned in his statement u/s 161 Cr. P. C. He has also identified Ex. PW6/A, which is register no. 2 of the station daily diary of Kotwali Circle, which runs into two pages. He has also identified the certified copy of register of duty chart dated 07.02.2004 and 08.02.2004 Ex. PW6/A and Ex. PW6/B. He has further stated that he has also taken photostate copy of RC of Vehicle No. DL1VA2309, Permit Ex. PW5/G, Fitness Certificate of the vehicle Ex. PW5/G1, Insurance 14 of 50 15 certificate Ex. PW5/G2, photocopy of Driving Licence of driver Parshu Ram Ex. PW5/G3. Thereafter, the case was transferred to Inspector Shyam Sunder.
PW13 Inspector Shyam Prakash deposed that he has recorded the statement of Inspector Ajeet Kumar, Deepak Sharma, conductor of RTV of complainant and Subhash Chander, brother of complainant. He also collected opinion from document division, CFSL and exhibits from CFSL, New Delhi. He alongwith both the independent witnesses Jitender Bhardwaj and Suresh Kumar, visited the house of complainant and played there investigation's copy of recorded conversation. Complainant and driver identified their voices as well as voices of both the accused persons i.e. ASI Vikram Singh and constable Vikram Singh. He identified his signatures on Voice Identification Memo Ex. PW5/F and the signatures of all the witnesses on Ex. PW5/A. 15 of 50 16 After collecting sanction for Prosecution in respect of both the accused persons from Competent Authority, he filed the charge sheet after having been satisfied case is made out against the accused persons on the basis of documents available on record.
PW14 Deepak Sharma was the conductor in the RTV of complainant Satish Gupta. He identified his signatures on Recovery Memo Ex. PW5/D. He was declared hostile by the prosecution as he resiled from his previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. PW15 Parshuram was the Driver of the complainant Satish Gupta. He was also declared hostile by the prosecution as he resiled from his previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C.
13. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statements under Section 313 Cr. P. C. of both the accused persons were recorded. The accused persons have denied their involvement in 16 of 50 17 commission of offence and have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant as the complainant is having grudge against Traffic Police Officials.
14. Accused persons have not led any defence evidence.
15. I have heard final arguments of Learned PP for CBI and Learned Counsel for the accused persons and perused the record.
16. Ld. PP for the CBI argued that the prosecution has proved its case that accused no. 1 ASI Vikram Singh and accused no. 2 Constable Vikram Singh both being public servant while working in Delhi Traffic Police as ZO and Constable respectively and accused no. 1 ASI/ZO Vikram Singh demanded Rs.100/ as entry fee from the complainant for allowing the vehicle no. DLIVA2309 of the complainant Satish Kumar Gupta to ply through Kodia Pul. He further argued that accused no. 2 Constable Vikram Singh accepted Rs.100/ on the directions of accused no. 1 ASI Vikram Singh and the same was 17 of 50 18 recovered from the left side pant pocket of accused no. 2 Constable Vikram Singh. It is further argued that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts against both the accused persons, hence they may be convicted.
17. It is argued by Sh. H. K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the accused no.1 that accused no.1 ASI Vikram Singh has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no iota of evidence regarding demand except the sole testimony of the complainant. It is further argued that the complainant has completely changed the total version of his complaint while deposing before the court. It is argued that in the complaint Ex. PW5/A, it is mentioned that accused has demanded Rs. 100/ on account of entry fee for allowing his vehicle through Kodia Pul but before the court, he deposed that accused has demanded a sum of Rs.200/ as entry fee and there are number of contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses.
18 of 50 19
18. It is argued by Sh. Yogesh Verma, learned Counsel for accused no.2 Constable Vikram Singh that the name of the accused Constable Vikram Singh has not been named in the complaint Ex. PW5/A lodged by the complainant in the CBI and he has not demanded the bribe money from the complainant. Moreover the money was not recovered from the possession of the accused Constable Vikram Singh as the tainted money was lifted from the floor. It is further argued that all the documents were prepared in the CBI. It is further submitted by the learned Defence counsel that accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he may be acquitted. He placed reliance on the following citations :
1. NEPAL SINGH RAWAL VS CBI, 2011 (4) C. C. CASES (HC) 41.
2. STATE OF HARYANA VS MAM RAJ, 2011 (1) CRIMES 486 (P&H) PUBLIC SERVANT & SANCTION.
19. The undisputed position is that accused no.1 ASI Vikram Singh was working as ZO/ASI in Traffic Police and accused no. 2 19 of 50 20 Constable Vikram Singh was working as Constable in Traffic Police and both the accused persons did not dispute this fact in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. Therefore, it stands proved that both the accused persons were public servants within the meaning of Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988.
20. The evidence on record shows that on 11.04.2005 the Sanction Orders were given for launching Prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act against accused no.1 ASI Vikram Singh and accused no. 2 Constable Vikram Singh by PW3 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Meena, Deputy Commissioner of Police Traffic (Head Quarters), who in his deposition testified that he was the Competent Authority to remove both the accused persons from the service at the time of granting sanction. PW3 further deposed that at the time of according Sanction Orders Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B against accused no.1 and 2 respectively, he had gone through the complaint, FIR, Statement of witnesses and 20 of 50 21 relevant memos and after application of his mind, he accorded sanction. A perusal of the Sanction Orders Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B shows that the facts and material placed before PW3 by the CBI were the complaint, Handing Over Memo, Recovery Memo, Personal Search Memo and other related documents alongwith the file containing the Statement of witnesses, Memos prepared during investigation, documents collected during investigation in respect of the said allegations and circumstances of the case.
21. In the entire evidence of PW3, there is nothing to even remotely suggest that he had not applied his mind before according sanction vide Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B. There being no dispute about PW3 being the Competent Authority to accord Sanction and the testimony of PW3 proving due application of mind, the Sanction orders Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B are legal and valid.
21 of 50 22 CONSPIRACY, GRATIFICATION AND CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT
22. Before adverting to the discussion of this case, it would be useful to have a look upon the relevant law. The accused persons have been charged for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Section 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act and also charged separately for the substantive offences punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act, which are reproduced as under: Section 120A defines "Criminal Conspiracy", which reads as under: "120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy - When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or 22 of 50 23 more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. Explanation - It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object."
23. As per definition of criminal conspiracy U/s 120A of Indian Penal Code when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done, (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act, which is not illegal by illegal means, such agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy. The essence of offence of conspiracy is the fact of combination by agreement. The agreement may be express or implied, or in part express and in part implied. The conspiracy arises and the offence is committed as soon as the agreement is made; and the offence continues to be committed so long as the combination persists, that is until the conspiratorial agreement is terminated by completion of its performance or by abandonment or frustration. The gist of offence of conspiracy is an agreement to break the law. In considering the question of criminal conspiracy, it is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about the date of formation of conspiracy, about the persons who took part in the formation of conspiracy, about the object which the conspirators set before themselves as the object of 23 of 50 24 conspiracy and about the manner in which the object of conspiracy was to be carried out. All this necessarily a matter of inference. The essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act. Such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both. It is not necessary that there should be express proof of the agreement, far from the acts and conduct of the parties, the agreement can be inferred.
24. On the point of criminal conspiracy, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Narayan Laxmi Narayan Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 1980 SC 439, that a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same. The offence can be only proved largely from inference drawn from acts or illegal omissions committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design.
25. The agreement to conspire may be inferred from circumstances, which raised a presumption of a concerted plan to carry out an unlawful design. A conspiracy need not be established by proof which actually brings the party together; but may be shown like any other fact, by circumstantial evidence.
26. In Kehar Singh and Others Vs State, AIR 1988 SC 1883, it 24 of 50 25 is observed:
"Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The prosecution will often rely on the evidence of acts of various parties to infer that they were done in reference to their common intention. The prosecution will also more often rely upon the circumstantial evidence. The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the Court must require whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the later does. It is however, essential that the offence of conspiracy required some kind of physical manifestation or agreement the express agreement however need not be proved. Nor mutual meetings of the two persons is necessary. Nor it is necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence
25 of 50 26 as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient."
"7. Public Servant taking gratification other then legal remuneration in respect of an official act. Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification, whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, Corporation or Government Company referred to in Clause (c) of Section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less then 6 months but which may extend to 5 years and shall also be liable to fine."
"13. Criminal Misconduct by a Public Servant.
(1)A Public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct;
(a) to (c) ..........
(d) if he,
26 of 50
27
(i)by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or ***** (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less then one year but which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine."
27. On bare reading of the above provisions, it is clear that in order to bring home the charge under Section 120B of IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that both the accused persons in criminal conspiracy have demanded or accepted the bribe money from the complainant. A conspiracy need not be established by proof which actually brings the party together, but may be shown like any other fact, by circumstantial evidence.
28. It is also clear that in order to bring home the charge under Section 7 of the PC Act, the Prosecution is required to prove that the accused accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain illegal gratification 27 of 50 28 from any person and in order to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988 also, the Prosecution is required to establish that the accused by corrupt or illegal means or by using his official position, obtained advantage or a valuable thing for himself or for any other person. Thus, it is obvious that two essential components to be proved for bringing home the charge under Section 7 & Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988, are the demand and acceptance of the bribe. DEMAND, ACCEPTANCE & RECOVERY
29. The complainant Satish Kumar Gupta appearing before the court has been examined as PW5, who has specifically deposed that on 07.02.2004, when he alongwith his driver reached at RR Office, Near red light Kodia Pul, accused no. 1 ZO/ASI Vikram Singh made a signal to stop the vehicle and accordingly the driver of his vehicle stopped the vehicle and complainant got down from the vehicle and talked to accused no. 1 ZO/ASI Vikram Singh, who demanded Rs.200/ on account of entry. On this, complainant PW5 made earnest request to accused no.1 ASI Vikram Singh that he will pay the said amount next day or next to next day. PW5 complainant Satish Kumar Gupta further 28 of 50 29 deposed that on this accused no.1 ASI Vikram Singh told him that in case the amount was not paid to him by 9.00 AM / 10.00 AM on next day, he will issue challan of his vehicle. PW5 further deposed that at that time, 45 police constables were also present alongwith accused no. 1 ASI Vikram Singh. PW5 further deposed that out of those 45 police constable, accused no. 2 constable Vikram Singh was also present there. PW5 has correctly identified the accused no. 2 constable Vikram Singh before the Court. PW5 further deposed that thereafter, he went to CBI Office and lodged the complaint Ex. PW5/A.
30. PW5 further deposed that on 08.02.2004 at about 7 AM or 7.30 AM, 810 persons of CBI team included two government witnesses namely Suresh and Jitender came to his office at Bhajan Pura. PW5 also deposed that he produced one GC note of Rs.100/ to CBI officer, who noted its number on a paper and then they applied some powder on the said GC note. Thereafter, the same was kept by him in his left side of his shirt pocket. PW5 complainant also deposed that one pen type tape recorder was also given to him, which he also kept in his left side shirt pocket.
31. PW5 complainant Satish Kumar Gupta further deposed that thereafter he alongwith CBI team and witnesses went towards Kodia 29 of 50 30 Pul in his RTV and when they reached near RR Office, Kodia Pul, accused no.1 ASI Vikram Singh gave signal by gesture of his hand to stop the vehicle and on his instructions, the driver Parshuram stopped the vehicle and he sent his driver to accused no.1 to inquire as to what he says and he also followed his driver. Accused no. 1 asked the complainant to pay Rs.200/ and get entry of his vehicle, then PW5 complainant requested him to reduce the amount and take Rs.100/. Then accused no.1 told him to pay Rs.100/ to accused no.2 constable Vikram Singh who was also standing with him. Accordingly, he paid the tainted GC note to accused no. 2 on the instruction of accused no.1, who accepted the same in his right hand and kept the same in his left side pant pocket.
32. PW5 further deposed that when he paid tainted amount of Rs.100/ to accused no.2, who made an entry in his diary in his code wording. PW5 further deposed that when the bribe money was accepted by the accused persons, he gave the preappointed signal to the CBI, who were sitting in the vehicle. Immediately the officers of the CBI team came at the spot and arrested both the accused persons.
33. PW5 further deposed that thereafter both hand washes and the wash of inner lining of the left pant pocket of accused no.2 were 30 of 50 31 taken, which turned pink in colour. PW5 complainant identified the GC note Ex. P1, which was given by him to accused no.2 on the instruction of accused no.1 and recovered from accused no.2. PW5 complainant further identified his diary Ex. PW5/E and the entry encircled with red ink Ex. PW5/E1 made by accused no.2.
34. PW5 Complainant Satish Kumar Gupta further deposed that on playing the cassette Ex. P2, he identified his voice and the voice of his driver as well as the voice of accused no.1 ASI Vikram Singh. On playing the cassette, he identified his own voice asking his driver "Ja to sahi kya keh rahai hain." He identified the voice of accused no.1 saying "entry karao". He further identified the voice of accused no.1 saying "entry ke 200 rupaye de". PW5 further identified the voice of his driver requesting accused no.1 "aap 200 rupaye keh raai the sir kam le lain". PW5 again identified the voice of the accused no.1 saying "chal 100 de de jaldi kar gadi ka number kya hai yeh bata de." He further identified the voice of accused no.1 saying "Isko de de." PW5 has also identified his voice saying "teyese zero noe".
35. This witness has been cross examined on behalf of the accused no.1 at length running in several pages, various questions, relevant and irrelevant, have been put to this witness. Not even a single 31 of 50 32 suggestion has been put to this witness by the accused no.1 ASI Vikram Singh with regard to the demand and the directions given by him for handing over the bribe money to accused no.2 Constable Vikram Singh. No cross examination on a substantive point on behalf of accused no.1 ASI Vikram Singh amounts to the admission of the same. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of this witness on the point of demand of the bribe by accused no.1 ASI Vikram Singh.
36. This witness has also been cross examined on behalf of the accused no.2. But not even a signal question has been put to this witness with regard to acceptance of the bribe money and recovery of the tainted money from accused no.2 Constable Vikram Singh. No cross examination on a substantive point on behalf of accused no.2 Constable Vikram Singh amounts to the admission of the same. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of this witness on all the material points of acceptance and recovery of the bribe from accused no.2 Constable Vikram Singh.
37. During the recording of the statement of the complainant before the court on 23.03.2007, PW5 deposed that accused no.1 ASI Vikram Singh visited in his house for about 56 times and yesterday, he 32 of 50 33 had also come to his house to pressurize him and he also brought his relatives and threatened him.
38. This part of the testimony of the witness has not been challenged by accused no.1 ASI Vikram Singh during cross examination. Even not even a single suggestion was put to the witness that accused no.1 had not visited the house of the complainant. This conduct of accused no.1 ASI Vikram Singh shows that there was some fishy as there was no occasion for the accused no.1 ASI Vikram Singh to visit the house of the complainant during the trial. The Ld. Predecessor of the court on that very date also warned the accused no.1 ASI Vikram Singh to be careful in future and Pairvi Officer was also directed to give necessary protection to the witness.
39. During the course of arguments, the Ld. Counsel for accused no.1 ASI Vikram Singh has led more emphasis on the fact that the complainant has changed the prosecution version. The mere fact that PW5 complainant has mentioned in his complaint Ex. PW5/A that accused persons have demanded a sum of Rs.100/ as entry fee but he has deposed before the court that accused no. 1 ASI Vikram Singh demanded Rs.200/ on account of entry. The basic version of the 33 of 50 34 Prosecution is that the demand was made for allowing to ply the vehicle of the complainant through Kodia Pul. It is immaterial that whether the amount is Rs.100/ or Rs.200/. The contradiction pointed out by Ld. Defence Counsel is of minor nature. This contradiction cannot be called material contradiction. Such contradiction is bound to come in the statement of the witness because of the passage of time and other reason. Court cannot expect a parrot like repetition of the version by the witness.
40. The law regarding contradiction was considered in the case of State of U. P. Vs M. K. Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48, wherein it was held that despite discrepancies in the statement made in the court by the material witnesses if their testimonies fully inculpate the accused, conviction can be based on such evidence. The observations were made by the Apex Court as under: "While appreciating the evidence of a witness the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities, pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor 34 of 50 35 of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matter not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentence torn out of context here and there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of evidence as a whole."
Their Lordships further observed, "Unless there are reasons weighty and formidable, it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. even honest and truthful witness may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention, and reproduction differ with individuals. cross examination is an unequal dual between the rustic (witness) and refined lawyer."
41. In another case of Bharuda Broginbhai Harjibhai Vs State of Gujarat AIR 1983 SC 753, wherein it was held that discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of 35 of 50 36 the prosecution should not be attached undue importance. The reasons given in that judgment for arriving at this conclusion as under: "1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
2) Ordinarily, it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. Thus, mental faculties, therefore, cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
3) The powers of observance differ from person to person, what one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss image of one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
4) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
5) In regard to exact time of an incident or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people 36 of 50 37 make their estimates by guess work on spur of moment at the time of interrogation and one cannot expect people make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends upon the timesense of individuals which varies from person to person.
6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which takes place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.
7) A witness though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details of imagination on the spur of moment. The sub conscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved, though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him perhaps it is a sort of psychological moment."
42. In view of the law discussed above, it cannot be said that the contradiction pointed out by learned Counsel for accused is very vital contradiction. This is contradiction which is likely to occur with the 37 of 50 38 passage of time.
43. PW7 Jitender Kumar, Independent Witness deposed that accused no.1 ASI Vikram Singh and accused no.2 constable Vikram Singh were present at the spot. PW7 further deposed that he was directed by the CBI Officer to search the accused no. 2 Constable Vikram Singh and after search, he recovered the tainted GC notes of Rs.100/ from accused no.2 Constable Vikram Singh.
44. PW9 Suresh Kumar, shadow witness, deposed that the other witness has searched the constable and recovered some papers alongwith some note in his presence. The number of GC note was tallied with noted number. PW9 further deposed that the tainted money was recovered from the left pocket of the pant.
45. PW10 TLO/Inspector Karan Arya (earlier known as H. K. Lal), deposed that after some, PW5 complainant came back and scratched his head with his both hands signalling completion of bribe transaction. Immediately, he alongwith independent witnesses and other CBI Officials rushed towards those police officials and after introducing himself, he challenged the accused persons that they have demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.100/ from the complainant for the entry of the vehicle. On this they turned pale and kept mum.
38 of 50 39
46. PW7 Jitender Kumar, PW9 Suresh Kumar and PW10 TLO/Inspector Karan Arya (earlier known as H. K. Lal) have also been cross examined at length on behalf of the accused persons running in several pages, however, nothing such has come out in their cross examination so as to disbelieve their statement.
47. PW5 complainant Satish Kumar Gupta. PW7 Jitender Kumar, recovery witness, PW9 Suresh Kumar, shadow witness and PW10 TLO/Inspector Karan Arya (earlier known as H. K. Lal), have deposed that washes of hands and the wash of inner lining of the left side pant pocket of accused no.2 Constable Vikram Singh were taken in solution of sodium carbonate prepared in water, which turned pink. These witnesses have been cross examined, however, nothing such has come out in their cross examination so as to disbelieve their statements.
48. PW4 Sh. C. L. Bansal, Senior Scientific Officer, CFSL, who has chemically examined all the washes has stated that after chemical analysis of all the washes, he found presence of Phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate in samples of the washes RHW, LHW and LSPPW. Thus the presence of Phenolphthalein Powder on the hands as well as on the inner lining of Left side pant pocket of the accused no.2 has 39 of 50 40 been confirmed vide his report Ex. PW4/A.
49. This witness has been cross examined at length on behalf of the accused no.2 constable Vikram Singh, however, nothing such has come out in his cross examination so as to disbelieve his statement.
50. The importance of Phenolphthalein test was underline by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Som Parkash Vs State of Delhi, AIR 1974 Supreme Court 989, wherein para 10, it is held as Under: "..........of course, the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 4 by itself, if believed as rightly believed by the High Court, proves the passing of the money to the accused and its production by him when challenged by PW7. The fact is indisputable that the hands, the handkerchief and the inner lining of the trouser pocket of the accused turned violet when dipped in soda ash solution. From this the State counsel argues that on no hypothesis except that the notes emerged from the accused's Pocket or possession can the triple colour change be accounted for. The evidence furnished by inorganic chemistry often outwits the technology of corrupt officials, provided no alternative reasonable possibility is made out. The appellant offers a plausible theory. PW1 kept the notes with him and his hands thus carried the powder. He gave a bottle of cake to 40 of 50 41 the accused and the bottle thus transmitted particles of Phenolphthalein to the latter's hands. He (he accused) wiped his face with the handkerchief and put it into his trouser pocket thus contaminating the lining with the guilty substance. Moreover, the inner lining was dipped by PW7 with his hands which had the powder. Thus, all the three items stand explained, according to him. These recondite possibilities and likely freaks have been rejected by both the courts and we are hardly persuaded into hostility to that finding. It is put meet that science - oriented detection of crime is made a massive programme of police work, for in our technological age nothing more primitive can be conceived of than denying the discoveries of the sciences as aids to crime suppression and nothing cruder can retard forensic efficiency then swearing by traditional oral evidence only thereby discouraging the liberal use of scientific research to prove guilt."
51. In Raghbir Singh Vs State of Punjab, (1976) 1 SCC 145 while discarding the oral and documentary evidence laid on behalf of the prosecution is not such as to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court, the Supreme Court observed in para no.11 as follows: 41 of 50 42 "We may take this opportunity of pointing out that it would be desirable if in cases of this kind where a trap is laid for a public servant, the marked current notes, which are used for the purpose of trap, are treated with Phenolphthalein Powder so that the handling of such marked currency notes by the public servant can be detected by chemical process and the court does not have to depend on oral evidence which is something of a dubious character for the purpose of deciding the fate of the public servant."
52. From the above discussion, presence of Phenolphthalein Powder on both the hands and inner lining of the left side pant pocket is proved. There is no explanation on behalf of accused no.2 as to how Phenolphthalein Powder has appeared on his hands and inner lining of the left side pant pocket.
53. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Vs State of Punjab, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 1125, in this regard, has held as follows: "Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947), S.5 - Offence of accepting bribe - Nothing to doubt testimony of Prosecution witnesses - Defence by accused that he was victim of conspiracy - Not supported by evidence on record - Failure of accused to explain presence of Phenolphthalein Powder on his hand - Held, 42 of 50 43 evidence of prosecution witnesses was sufficient to prove offence against accused - Conviction of accused was proper."
54. TLO Inspector Karan Arya (Earlier known as H. K. Lal) has specifically deposed that when he challenged the accused persons that they have demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.100/ from the complainant for the entry of the vehicle. On this they turned pale and kept mum. Their identity was ascertained. He has specifically deposed that it was revealed that Constable Vikram Singh had accepted the bribe money with his right hand, shifted into his left and then shifted the money in his left side pant pocket.
55. From the above discussion, it is also proved that tainted money of Rs.100/ was recovered from the left side pant pocket of accused no.2 Constable Vikram Singh by PW7 Jitender Kumar, the recovery witness. This version has also been corroborated by PW9 Suresh Kumar, Shadow Witness and PW10 TLO/Inspector Karan Arya. It is submitted by the learned Defence counsel for accused no.2 Constable Vikram Singh that the money was lifted from the floor. In my view, if the money was lifted from the floor but no explanation is coming forthwith from accused no. 2 how the colour of the inner lining of the pant pocket gave positive test for the presence of Phenolphthalein 43 of 50 44 Powder. The recovery of the tainted money from the pant pocket of accused no.2 indicates that he had received the illegal gratification knowingly.
56. In a prosecution for the offence of bribery the conduct of accused persons are relevant U/s 8 of Evidence Act. When the accused persons were challenged regarding acceptance of the bribe amount, they turned pale and kept mum. Accused no. 2 constable Vikram Singh has not given any explanation regarding the recovery of the tainted money from his left side pant pocket.
57. From the above discussion, it is again proved that accused no. 2 Constable Vikram Singh accepted Rs.100/ voluntarily and consciously which was recovered from his possession.
58. A pen type tape recorder was also given to complainant Satish Kumar Gupta for recording the conversation between him and the accused persons. Accordingly, complainant has recorded the conversation between him and accused no.1 ASI Vikram Singh. Transcription of which is Ex. PW7/D (MarkA) running into 4 pages, has also been prepared and produced on the judicial file. In this regard, PW7 has deposed as follow: 44 of 50 45 "Transcription Ex. PW7/D was prepared, which bears my signatures at point A an I have written my name and official address at point B."
59. PW5 Complainant Satish Kumar Gupta has identified cassette Ex. P2, he identified his voice and the voice of his driver as well as the voice of accused no.1 ASI Vikram Singh. On playing the cassette, he identified his own voice asking his driver "Ja to sahi kya keh rahai hain." He identified the voice of accused no.1 saying "entry karao". He further identified the voice of accused no.1 saying "entry ke 200 rupaye de". PW5 further identified the voice of his driver requesting accused no.1 "aap 200 rupaye keh raai the sir kam le lain". PW5 again identified the voice of the accused no.1 saying "chal 100 de de jaldi kar gadi ka number kya hai yeh bata de." He further identified the voice of accused no.1 saying "Isko de de." PW5 has also identified his voice saying "teyese zero noe".
60. PW1 Dr. Rajinder Singh, Principal Scientific Officer and HOD Physics, CFSL, New Delhi, has proved the voice identification report Ex. PW1/A. Result of examination is as under:
(i)"The auditory examination of questioned voice marked exhibit Q1(A) and specimen voice of ASI Vikram Singh, Traffic, Delhi Police marked exhibit 45 of 50 46 S1(A) recorded in cassette marked exhibit S1 reveal that questioned voice marked exhibits Q1 (A) is similar to the specimen voice marked exhibit S1(A) in respect of their linguistic and phonetic features.
(ii) The voice spectrographic examination of questioned voice samples marked exhibits Q1 (a1), Q1 (a2), Q1 (a3) and specimen voice samples marked exhibits S1 (a1), S1 (a2) & S1 (a3) reveal that the questioned voice samples marked exhibits Q1 (a1), Q1 (a2) and Q1(a3) are similar to specimen voice samples marked exhibits S1 (a1), S1 (a2) & S1 (a3) respectively in respect of their formant frequencies distribution, intonation pattern, no. of formants and other general visual features in voice grams.
Hence, the voice marked exhibits Q1 (A) is the voice of same person whose specimen voice is marked exhibit S1 (A) (Vikram Singh ASI, Traffic, Delhi Police) beyond reasonable doubt.
61. From Ex. PW1/A, it is proved that Q1(A) was having recorded voice of accused no. 1 ASI Vikram Singh.
62. Though, as discussed above there is sufficient evidence of PW5 complainant to prove demand of illegal gratification made by accused no.1 ASI Vikram Singh, which is corroborated by the voice 46 of 50 47 identification report Ex. PW1/A of PW1 Dr. Rajinder Singh.
63. PW5 complainant Satish Kumar Gupta has also deposed before the court that he paid the bribe amount of Rs.100/ to accused no. 2 Constable Vikram Singh on the instructions of accused no.1 ASI Vikram Singh. Then accused no.2 made entry Ex. PW5/E1 in pocket diary Ex. PW5/E produced by him (i.e. the complainant).
64. PW2 Deepak R. Handa, Sr. Scientific Officer GradeII, CFSL, New Delhi, has proved the documents identification reports Ex. PW2/F and Ex. PW2/G. As per his report Ex. PW2/G, the Document Exhibit Q1 is in the handwriting of the same person whose specimen handwriting is marked exhibit S1 to S7 Ex. PW2/C1 to Ex. PW2/C7 and S15 to S24 Ex. PW2/E1 to Ex. PW2/E10 of Constable Vikram Singh.
65. From Ex. PW2/G, it is proved that Q1 (i.e. entry Ex. PW5/E1 in the pocket diary Ex. PW5/E) was having the handwriting of accused no.2 Constable Vikram Singh.
66. As discussed above there is sufficient evidence of PW5 complainant Satish Kumar Gupta to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification coupled with the fact that the accused no.2 Constable Vikram Singh made entry in the code wording in the diary 47 of 50 48 of complainant. This fact is corroborated by the Document identification report Ex. PW2/G of PW2 Deepak R. Handa. No explanation is coming forthwith from accused no.2 Constable Vikram Singh with regard to how the colour of inner lining of the pant pocket solution turned pink. It is not the case of the accused no.2 that the money was thrust in his pant pocket by the complainant. The presence of Phenolphthalein Powder on the inner lining of the pant pocket of accused no.2 Constable Vikram Singh is corroborated by Sh. C. L. Bansal vide his report Ex. PW4/A.
67. There is nothing on the record to show that the complainant and the independent witnesses have any enemity with the accused persons. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused no.2 constable Vikram Singh that all the proceedings were done in CBI Office. In this regard, TLO PW10 Inspector Karan Arya (earlier known as H. K. Lal), deposed that it was a public place and there was possibility of commotion and destruction of evidence, the CBI team alongwith independent witnesses and accused persons left the place for CBI Office and after reaching the CBI Office, the digital Samsung Recorder was taken from the complainant and the complainant also gave one diary Ex. PW5/E in which the complainant showed the 48 of 50 49 remarks SKT 2309 had been written by accused no. 2 constable Vikram Singh after accepting the bribe from the complainant.
68. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond any reasonable doubts against both the accused persons to bring home their guilt that accused no. 1 ASI Vikram Singh while working as Zonal Officer, Traffic Police and accused no. 2 Constable Vikram Singh while working as constable, Traffic Police demanded bribe money of Rs.100/ from the complainant and in furtherance of their demand, accused no.1 ASI Vikram Singh gave directions to the complainant to give the illegal gratification to accused no. 2 Constable Vikram Singh, who has accepted the bribe amount through his right hand and after passing it into his left hand kept the same in left side pant pocket and after accepting the tainted amount, he made entry Ex. PW5/E1 in the code wording in the pocket diary Ex. PW5/E of the complainant and thus by corrupt and illegal means they abused their official position as public servant and obtained pecuniary advantage of Rs.100/ and hence accused no.1 ASI Vikram Singh and accused no.2 Constable Vikram Singh are held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 120B of IPC read with Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) read 49 of 50 50 with section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and accused no. 1 and accused no.2 are also held guilty and convicted for the substantive offences punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY I.E. ON 31.01.2012.
(N. K. SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)(CBI):02 DELHI.
50 of 50 51 IN THE COURT OF SH. N. K. SHARMA, SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)-02 DELHI.
RC No. 6(A)/2004 CC No. 08/05 CBI VS
1. VIKRAM SINGH, ZO/ASI, S/O SH. KALU RAM, R/O 31A, POLICE COLONY, MODEL TOWN, DELHI.
2. VIKRAM SINGH, CONSTABLE, S/O LATE SH. KHEM SINGH, R/O D52, NEW POLICE LINE, K.W. CAMP, DELHI.
Date of Institution : 28.05.2005.
Date of Arguments : 21.01.2012.
Date of Judgment : 31.01.2012.
Order on Sentence : 24.02.2012.
51 of 50
52
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
1. Vide my separate judgment announced on 31.01.2012, ASI Vikram Singh and Constable Vikram Singh are held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 120B of IPC read with Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. ASI Vikram Singh and Constable Vikram Singh are also held guilty and convicted for the substantive offences punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. It is argued by Sh. H. K. Sharma, learned counsel for convict ASI Vikram Singh that he is 49 years of age and is not a previous convict. He is facing agony of this trial since 2005. He is the sole bread earner of his family. He has to look after his aged father. He has also to look after his house wife and two young children i.e. daughter aged about 17 years and son aged about 19 years. He has clean antecedents. It is prayed that in these circumstances, lenient view may be taken against him.
52 of 50 53
3. It is argued by Sh. Yogesh Verma, learned counsel for convict Constable Vikram Singh that he is 31 years of age and is not a previous convict. He is facing agony of the trial since 2005. He is the sole bread earner of his family. He has to look after his aged mother. He has also to look after his house wife and two minor daughter aged about 5 years and 1 ½ years. He has clean antecedents. It is prayed that in these circumstances, lenient view may be taken against him.
4. It is argued by the learned Senior PP Sh. Brajesh Shukla for CBI that no leniency be shown to them in awarding the sentence as it will be undesirable and will also be against public interest. He has argued that convicts are involved in a serious corruption case inspite of being public servants. They were working in the Traffic Police of Delhi Police. They should be awarded severe punishment and heavy fine may also be imposed.
5. Having considered thoughtfully, submissions made on behalf of the Convicts and the Prosecution, I am of the view that if following sentences in this case are awarded, it shall serve the ends of justice.
6. Sentences to ASI Vikram Singh: Convict ASI Vikram Singh is sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of one year for offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC 53 of 50 54 read with Section 7 & 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. He is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/(Rs. Two Thousand Only), in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S. I. for a further period of two months.
For offence punishable under Section 7 of PC Act, 1988, Convict ASI Vikram Singh is sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of one year with a fine of Rs.3,000/(Rs. Three Thousand Only), in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S. I. for a further period of three months.
For offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988, Convict ASI Vikram Singh is sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of 1 ½ years with a fine of Rs.5,000/(Rs. Five Thousand Only), in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S. I. for a further period of five months.
7. Sentences to Constable Vikram Singh: Convict Constable Vikram Singh is sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of one year for offence punishable under Section 120B of IPC read with Section 7 & 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988. He is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/(Rs. Two Thousand Only), in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S. I. for 54 of 50 55 a further period of two months.
For offence punishable under Section 7 of PC Act, 1988, Convict Constable Vikram Singh is sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of one year with a fine of Rs.3,000/(Rs. Three Thousand Only), in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S. I. for a further period of three months.
For offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988, Convict Constable Vikram Singh is sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of 1 ½ years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/(Rs. Five Thousand Only), in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S. I. for a further period of five months.
8. It is further directed that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr. P. C. be also given to both the convicts.
9. A copy of Judgment and this order on sentence be given to the convicts free of cost. File be consigned to Record Room.
(N. K. SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)(CBI):02 DELHI.
55 of 50