Delhi District Court
State vs Vijay Veer Singh on 22 September, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIMESH BHASKAR MANI TRIPATHI,
MM02, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. Vijay Veer Singh
DD No. 3A dated 04.12.2013
PS: V K NORTH
U/S: 171E IPC
CNR No. : DLND020026542013
Date of commission of offence : 03.12.2013
Date of institution of the case : 18.12.2013
Name of the complainant : Dr. Murad Ahmad
Name of accused and address : Vijay Veer Singh
S/o Sh. Dharam Veer Solanki
R/o H.No. SRS154, Phiahu
Wali Gali, Village Nasirpur,
Delhi110045.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 171E IPC
State Representation : Sh. Prashant Chaudhary, Asst.
Public Prosecutor
Accused Representation : Sh. Sanjeev Beniwal
Plea of Accused : Plead not guilty
Final order Acquitted
Date of judgment : 22.09.2023
DD No. 3-A dt 04.12.2013
State Vs. Vijay Veer Singh
PS. V. K. North Page No. 1 of 11
JUDGMENT
1. This kalandra was registered against accused Vijay Veer Singh. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 03.12.2013 at about 11:00 PM at JNU Campus, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi accused was distributing money in cash to JNU staff members as a gratification with the object of inducing them to exercise their electoral rights in the Delhi assembly election 2013 and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 171E IPC. After that completion of investigation, charge sheet u/s 171E IPC was filed against accused Vijay Veer Singh. Notice was served upon the accused for committing offences U/s 171E IPC.
2. On the basis of challan, notice for committing the offence punishable under section 171E IPC was framed against the accused on 15.01.2015 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case prosecution examined three witnesses: (3.1) Ct. Suresh Kumar was examined as PW1. He deposed that on 04122013, he was posted as Ct. at PS Vasant Kunj (North) and on that day he alongwith SI R.P. Yadav was on emergency duty and during patrolling, they reached JNU Campus, North Gate and there they saw that crowd had gathered. They went there and saw that some students and security personnels had apprehended one person. Students were saying that the same person who was apprehended was distributing money in the campus. They conducted his casual search and found Rs.41,000/ in the pocket of his pant. His Mahindra XUV car bearing no. DL 4CNB 6651 was checked and one purse was found containing Rs.5,000/. He further deposed that they were about to take him to PS but due to objections of students they could not take him so SHO was called. One student whose name PW1 did not remember. (Vol. Murad Ahmad Khan gave a complaint regarding distribution of money in the campus.) Thereafter with the help of staff, DD No. 3-A dt 04.12.2013 State Vs. Vijay Veer Singh PS. V. K. North Page No. 2 of 11 he was taken to PS. Legal action was initiated against that person. The person distributing the money was present in the court today and was correctly identified by PW1. Ld. APP seeks permission to cross examine PW1 as he was not disclosing complete facts of the prosecution case. He deposed that they went to JNU campus at about 12.00 midnight. He stated it correct that written complaint was given by Dr. Murad Ahmad Khan and that the XUV car alongwith the recovered money were seized in my presence by SI Ram Pratap. PW1 has correctly identified the photographs are showing the car seized by the IO from the spot and has correctly identified the case property Ex.P1.
During cross examination of PW1, he deposed that on the day of incident, he was patrolling with the SI R.P.Yadav and when he reached at the spot 5060 persons were there and it is correct that the accused were beaten by the students present there. No persons were present in the said crowd to whom the accused gave money. During the investigation also no persons came forward to whom accused gave money as stated by the complainant and it was correct that during the day of incident the election camping of Delhi Assembly was going on and that the wife of accused younger brother is serving in JNU and accused was going to met with his mother who also reside with the younger brother. PW1 denied the suggestion that the above kalandra was registered on the pressure from the JNU students association.
(3.2) Dr. Murad Ahamad Khan was examined as PW2. He deposed that on 03.12.2013 at about 11:00 PM on that day Pashmibad, J.N.U. three persons were moving by a car make Mahindra XUV of Silver Colour and he does not recollect the number of the said car. He deposed that after taking their dinner, they were walking towards Pashmibad gate and the accused persons intervene himself stopped them and enquired to them, and introduced themselves as police official at PS Vasant Kunj (North) and when they reached near the car they found there were some campaign material related to the election. They suspected that they were not police officials and thereafter, he made a call to JNU Security no. which was 01126704752 and thereafter, accused persons tried to escape from the spot. Thereafter, when accused persons were trying to escape from Pashmibad they were stopped by security at the DD No. 3-A dt 04.12.2013 State Vs. Vijay Veer Singh PS. V. K. North Page No. 3 of 11 main gate. When they reached at the spot, where accused was stopped by the security. There were so many crowd. When they reached at the spot he saw that two persons came out from the car and escaped from there with two bags. Thereafter, security person called to the police. Thereafter, police persons made an enquiry from the accused persons and security. Thereafter, police official seized the money which was Rs. 41,000/ in cash and Rs 5,000/ on his purse. Thereafter, when police searched the car the police official also found the campaigning material related to BJP Thereafter, he gave a compliant to Police official which is Ex. PW2/A. PW2 correctly identified the accused.
During cross examination of PW2, he admitted that it was correct that he had seen the accused giving bribery to some persons. By the time, police reached the spot, the person who were giving bribe had already left from there. He was also correct that he had mentioned the above version in his original complaint which he had given to police on 03.12.2013 and he does not know any persons by name who were given bribe by the accused. Although, they are living in the staff quarters of JNU. It was correct that he did not tell the name of those persons to the Investigating officer during the course of investigation. He deposed that he does not know whether any of the persons who were bribed by the accused informed the police that he had been bribed by the accused. He denied the suggestion that he had falsely implicated the accused as there was a flag of BJP on his car. He does not know whether the accused had come to the place of occurrence because he wanted to meet his bhabhi who was working in JNU. At the time, police reached the spot, about 30 to 50 persons were present. He cannot say whether any other persons /witnesses has seen the accused giving bribery to the persons. He wrote in his complaint that the accused was impersonating himself to be from the police. He denied the suggestion the incident occurred as he was drunk and the accused was beaten by him along with other students. There was no violence at all. He denied the suggestion that he along with other students detained the accused. The accused was detained by the security personnel for handing over the accused to the police. He denied the suggestion that he had filed a false complaint in order to falsely implicate the accused. He cannot say whether the Station House Officer came to the spot or not as he does not know him personally. He cannot say whether the accused was released from the detention of the security staff of JNU only after the SHO DD No. 3-A dt 04.12.2013 State Vs. Vijay Veer Singh PS. V. K. North Page No. 4 of 11 reached the spot.
(3.3) SI Ram Pratap was examined as PW3. He deposed that on the intervening night of 03/04.12.2013, he was on emergency duty along with Ct. Suresh. During patrolling when he along with Ct.Suresh reached the main gate of JNU at about 12 O'clock midnight, he found that there was gathering of public at the main gate. There was around 5060 people present at the main gate. He along with Ct.Suresh enquired from the public as to what had happened and had noticed that one person namely Vijay Veer Singh was apprehended by the public persons. He also found a car make Mahindra XUV silver colour on the spot. It was a time of assembly election as just few days later the voting were supposed to be done. He was informed by the public persons that the said person namely Vijay Veer Singh was distributing money in the JNU staff quarters with the object of inducing the public persons to exercise their electoral right in the favour of desired candidate. He with the assistance of JNU Security staff took the accused Vijay Veer Singh away from the public persons. Upon interrogation of the accused and personal search of the accused, cash of Rs. 41,000/ (Forty one thousand) was recovered from the right pocket of the pants of the accused. Thereafter, he searched the Mahindra XUV car of the accused bearing No. DL4CNB6651. Upon the search of the car, a wallet was recovered which contained cash of Rs. 5000/ (five thousand), driving licence and RC. He enquired from Vijay Veer Singh as to why and how he is carrying such a heavy amount, however, he could not give any justification for the same. The cash of Rs. 41000/ was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A bearing his signature at point A. The Mahindra XUV car bearing No. DL4CNB6651 was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B bearing his signature at point A. The RC and DL were seized vide Ex.PW3/C bearing his signature at point A. The cash of Rs. 5000/ was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/D bearing my signature at point A. A written complaint was given to him one of the eye witness namely Dr. Murad Ahmad Khan the same is already Ex.PW 2/A. Thereupon when he tried to take the accused to PS and he was not allowed to do so by the students of JNU. Thereupon, he called at the PS and informed the SHO where after the SHO concerned reached the spot along with staff. Thereafter, when the SHO namely Manmohan Malik explained the students of JNU they allowed him to carry the accused DD No. 3-A dt 04.12.2013 State Vs. Vijay Veer Singh PS. V. K. North Page No. 5 of 11 to the PS for taking legal action. In the PS, he mentioned the details of the occurrence vide DD No. 3A dated 04.12.2013 the same is Ex. PW3/E bearing his signature at point A. As the offence was non cognizable in nature accused was released after interrogation and necessary formalities on pabandinama and personal bond of Rs. 10,000/. He prepared the kalandra and prepared the necessary documents and the same were filed before the court. The photographs of the abovesaid Mahindra XUV was captured by him Ex.P.1 and Ex.P2. He correctly identified the accused and case property i.e. Mahindra XUV car, DL, RC, cash amount of Rs. 41,000/ and 5000/.
During cross examination of PW3, he deposed that he did not find any evidence showing that the accused bribed the complainant or any other person on day of occurrence. During investigation, no witness came forward who admitted to have received bribe from the accused. After he apprehended the accused, the brother of the accused came to the spot and apprised him that he lived in the staff quarters of JNU. Accused Vijay Veer Singh told him that he had come to meet his brother who lived in JNU staff quarters. He denied the suggestion that accused Vijay Veer Singh had been assaulted by the public gathered at the spot. However, it is correct that the accused was surrounded by the public persons and at that time the security personnel from JNU were also present. The accused was taken to the PS Vasant Kunj only after the SHO reached the spot.
4. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused u/s 313 r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence against him. He further stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. The accused chose to lead defence evidence and Karamdev Solanki was examined by the accused as DW1.
5. Sh. Karamdev Solanki was examined as DW1 who deposed that the accused Vijay Veer Singh in the present case is his real brother. In June 2013, he alongwith his family had shifted to the aforesaid address as his wife namely Dr. Pratima Solanki, got employment in JNU as an Assistant Professor. He deposed that his brother namely Vijay used to visit him at DD No. 3-A dt 04.12.2013 State Vs. Vijay Veer Singh PS. V. K. North Page No. 6 of 11 JNU very frequently and on 03.12.2013, he had visited him and had dinner with him and his family and thereafter he left his house via his car. On the said date he had given his brother an amount of Rs. 35,000/ for construction/repair work of his ancestral house at Village Nasirpur, New Delhi. He had also brought original as well as the photocopy of an office order no. 151/2013 dated 08.05.2013 whereby employment and residence proof is depicted. The attested photocopy of the same is now Ex.DW1/A (OSR) bearing his signatures at point A. DW1 was crossexamined by Ld. APP for the state. During his cross examination he revealed that his brother had visited him on 03.12.2013 at about 07.30PM. His brother had left his place after dinner at about 10:30PM or 11:00PM. The amount of Rs. 35,000/ which he gave to his brother in cash and the currency notes were of 500 and 1000 denomination. The said amount of Rs. 35,000/ they were having in their home itself in cash as he and his wife both are employed and they also have a rental income which they receive in cash. There is no entry made at the time of entering the hostel of the JNU. Vol. The entry is made at the main gate only of the JNU. He denied the suggestion that my brother never visited him on the date of incident. He denied the suggestion that he had never gave him the said money.
6. Final arguments were heard by this court.
My findings are as under:
7. To prove its case, the prosecution has relied upon three witnesses. Out of the said witness, PW2 is the complainant and eye witness. PW1 and PW3 are police witness.
8. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that the recovery of money is not disputed by the accused person. In fact, accused has put forth his defence that he was carrying the money for repair work and not for the purpose alleged by the complainant. Accused has submitted that carrying of money by itself is not a crime. The allegation of bribery, as submitted by accused, has to be proved by a witness who was tried to be bribed, was actually bribed or person who DD No. 3-A dt 04.12.2013 State Vs. Vijay Veer Singh PS. V. K. North Page No. 7 of 11 saw the bribery happened. I am in consonance with the line of argument by the accused that carrying money by itself is not a crime. To establish offence U/s 171E IPC, the ingredients of the section has to be proved. For ready reference, Section 171E is reproduced herein after.
"171E. Punishment for bribery.--Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both:
Provided that bribery by treating shall be punished with fine only. Explanation.--"Treating" means that form of bribery where the gratification consists in food, drink, entertainment, or provision."
9. As stipulated in the Section 171E IPC, whosoever commits bribery must be punished. Now the primary question is what amounts to bribery. Bribery has not been defined under any act.
Black Law's Dictionary defined Bribery as "the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official, or other person, in charge of a public or legal duty". The word 'bribe' has been defined by Merriam Webster's Dictionary as "money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust".
10. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a constitutional bench matter namely Neeraj Dutta Vs. State of Delhi while dealing with Section 13 and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act has stipulated as under:
"In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can DD No. 3-A dt 04.12.2013 State Vs. Vijay Veer Singh PS. V. K. North Page No. 8 of 11 be either proved by direct evidence, in nature of oral evidence/documentary evidence. Further, the fact in issue namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct, oral or documentary evidence".
11. As a consequence of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and going by the definition of bribery, it is imperative to first prove demand of an illegal gratification and or acceptance of the same. Even otherwise reading Section 171E stipulates that the person who commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. As a corollary, it has to be established that the accused was giving money to someone for influencing his action.
12. PW 2 was examined and cross examined at length. During cross examination of PW2, who is also the complainant and eye witness, PW2 has accepted that he has seen the accused giving bribe to some person who are resident of JNU staff Quarters. However, the investigation is totally silent whether the same persons were identified or not, and whether the accused identified the person who were taking the bribe. It is also admitted by the witness PW2 that he did not tell the names of the person who were taking bribe to the IO. PW2 has further deposed that he cannot confirm or deny whether any person or witness has been seen by other witnesses taking the bribe. Perusal of testimony of PW2, major contradictions occur qua accused offering money to someone. PW2 during crossexamination, has frequently changed his stance, thereby denting the prosecution story.
13. PW1 during examination turned hostile on the point disclosing complete facts of the prosecution. Upon crossexamination, PW1 and PW3 specifically admitted that no persons were present on the spot of offence who could substantiate, apart from the complainant that any person was seen taking the bribe from the accused person. PW1 and PW3 has further admitted that the younger brother of the accused was living in the JNU campus and the mother DD No. 3-A dt 04.12.2013 State Vs. Vijay Veer Singh PS. V. K. North Page No. 9 of 11 of the accused was also residing with the younger brother of the accused.
14. Apart from this, nothing substantial has come on record to prove the fact that any person has seen either giving of the bribery or taking of the bribery. Further, the defence witness has specifically stated that an amount of Rs. 35,000/ was given by him to the accused for construction/ repair work of their ancestral house. DW1 has supported the version of the accused qua the presence of money that was recovered from the accused. DW1 has been duly cross examined by the State, however, nothing substantial came on record which could impeach the testimony of the witness.
15. It was highly incumbent upon the prosecution to have proved by evidence either oral or documentary, that the accused person was seen giving the bribery. Further, the investigation is completely silent on the aspect as to whom the bribe was being advanced.
16. In a criminal trial, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the identity of the person who committed the crime and against whom. In the present fact scenario, the only evidence that is available is the money recovered from accused. At the cost of repetition, mere recovery of money is not an offence. That too when the accused by evidence has shown the fact that money was given by his brother. There is not a single witness who had actually seen the accused giving bribe to any person. No witness is on record to prove that bribe was offered to him or was actually taken by him. As a result of the same, the prosecution story is left with contradiction and doubts.
17. It is the cardinal principal of criminal justice system that a person cannot be convicted for an offence on the basis of contradictory and doubtful story. In the present case, there is no evidence to substantiate that the accused person was giving or taking bribe to any person and thus, the offence of bribery as punishable U/s 171E IPC is not constituted.
DD No. 3-A dt 04.12.2013 State Vs. Vijay Veer Singh PS. V. K. North Page No. 10 of 11
18. In view of the said circumstances, accused Vijay Veer Singh is given benefit of doubt and is accordingly acquitted of the offence punishable U/s 171E IPC.
Note: This judgment contains 11 pages and each page bears the initials of undersigned and the last page bears the complete sign of undersigned.
Digitally signed ANIMESH by ANIMESH BHASKAR BHASKAR TRIPATHI MANI MANI Date: TRIPATHI 2023.09.22 Announced in the open Court, 16:08:36 +0530 on 22th September, 2023. (Animesh Bhaskar Mani Tripathi) MM02/ PHC/ New Delhi. DD No. 3-A dt 04.12.2013 State Vs. Vijay Veer Singh PS. V. K. North Page No. 11 of 11