Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Gurpreet Singh on 1 September, 2011
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S. Saron
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. 798-MA of 2010
Date of Decision: 1.9.2011
***
State of Punjab
.. Appellant
Vs.
Gurpreet Singh
.. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SARON.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR.
Present:- Ms. Manjari Nehru Kaul, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate
for the respondent.
***
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
The State of Punjab has sought permission to file an appeal against the judgment dated 8.3.2010 passed by learned Special Judge, Moga by dint of which the respondent-accused has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity).
The facts of the case are that complainant Jodh Khan got case FIR No. 45 dated 25.8.2006 registered against the respondent, working as Head Constable with Punjab Police, under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act at police station Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur on the allegations that while investigating the case FIR No.247 dated 26.7.2006 he demanded and consequently accepted a sum of Rs.2000/- as illegal gratification in lieu of helping complainant Jodh Khan etc., who were accused in the said FIR. A raiding party consisting of shadow witness Budh Singh(PW5), complainant Jodh Khan (PW7), Jangir Singh (PW6), Clerk, PSEB, Abhaijit Singh(PW8) working as Assistant Agriculture Engineer and DSP Ashok Baath(PW10) etc. apprehended the respondent while the tainted currency notes of 2 Rs.2000/-, which were handed over to the complainant for further giving to respondent Gurpreet Singh, were recovered from beneath the bricks lying in the police post.
On presentation of challan against the respondent, he was charge sheeted under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, during which the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses.
The incriminating material was put to the accused when his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He denied all of them and pleaded false implication. No evidence in defence was led by him.
After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned defence counsel, the trial court came to the conclusion that the material produced on the record by the prosecution does not inspire confidence and not connecting the accused with the alleged commission of crime and accordingly acquitted the respondent. Hence this application by the State of Punjab seeking leave to file an appeal.
We have heard learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the paper-book carefully.
The essential ingredients which the prosecution require to bring home the guilt of the accused, is the demand and the acceptance, for which the prosecution has miserably failed to prove. Complainant Jodh Khan on whose complaint the investigating agency allegedly swung into motion, did not support the case of the prosecution at all and has specifically deposed that neither the accused-respondent raised any demand from him nor he made any payment to him. Nothing fruitful could be elicited from the lengthy cross-examination of this witness at the hands of learned Public Prosecutor. One Budh Singh was deputed to act as a shadow witness. He appeared in the witness box as PW5. However, perusal of his testimony reveals that though he supported the case of the prosecution to some extent, but totally demolished the same when he undergoes the test of cross- examination. He tried to disown his statement given to the police. Further he though deposed about the recovery of currency notes but at the same time he stated that he was thereafter sent out and no other proceedings took place in his presence. He too was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, but still he denied that his statement was recorded on the 3 spot by the DSP. The clinching factor which comes out from his testimony is that, on the day when his statement was recorded, he admitted that he was brought to the Court by the officials of Vigilance Department in their own vehicle; he was made to sit in the vehicle when he was present in the Court complex. In this view of the matter, his statement was also found unreliable by the learned trial Court, being made under the pressure of the police.
So far as other witnesses namely PW6 Jangir Singh and PW8 Abhaijit Singh are concerned, they were not the witness of making of any demand by the accused from the complainant, which otherwise showed hostility towards the case of the prosecution. They allegedly came to the spot on receipt of the signal from the complainant and shadow witness. However, the perusal of their testimonies reveal that the recovery of tainted currency notes was effected not from the accused but from under the bricks, lying in the police post. Therefore, when the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance, no reliance can be placed on the testimonies of these witnesses, especially when the complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution and the statement made by the shadow witness was found to be made under the pressure of the police.
Coming to the deposition made by PW10 DSP Ashok Baath, the investigating officer, suffice to say that he, being the police official, was interested in the success of its case and his keenness in this regard is clear from the fact that they pick up the shadow witness from his village and brought to the Court for making the desirous statement.
Last but not the least, the version propounded by the prosecution is that, in order to join the accused in investigation of case FIR No.247, wherein the complainant Jodh Khan was also one of the accused, the respondent, who was investigating that case, demanded bribe on 25.8.2006, but the respondent proved on record that Jodh Khan had already joined the investigation on 21.8.2006, thereby having no occasion for the respondent to raise any demand of illegal gratification.
Taking into account all these facts the learned trial Court rightly acquitted the accused. The High Court ought not to interfere with the order of acquittal unless the judgment of acquittal is perverse or highly unreasonable. In the instant case, the judgment of acquittal rendered by 4 Special Judge, Moga is neither perverse nor unreasonable and it cannot be said that the trial court based its findings on irrelevant or inadmissible evidence. In the circumstances, We are not inclined to grant leave asked for and the application is accordingly dismissed.
(S.S. SARON) (ARVIND KUMAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
September 1,2011
Jiten