Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar Son Of Sh. Hem Raj vs State Of Punjab on 6 March, 2003
Author: K.C. Gupta
Bench: K.C. Gupta
JUDGMENT K.C. Gupta, J.
1. This appeal has been directed by Raj Kumar, accused, against the judgment and order dated 17.4.2002 passed by Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby he was found guilty and convicted under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 7 of the Act; in default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month; to undergo R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 300/- under Section 13(2) of the abovesaid Act and and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month. However, both the substantive sentenced were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Briefly stated, the facts are that on 10.7.1996, Labh Singh son of Kirpal Singh, resident of Village Bibipur filed an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib. He stated in that application that he was farmer by profession. On 6.7.1996, there was a dispute between his wife, Surjit Kaur and Jatinder Kaur wife of Swaran Singh son of Sukhdev Singh. Jatinder Kaur got herself admitted in Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib, on account of receipt of injuries. On 7.7.1998, he (Labh Singh) and his wife went to Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib to enquire about the incident narrated by Jatinder Kaur. Raj Kumar, appellant (accused) met them and told that in case they wanted to involve the opposite party in some serious offence, then they should pay him Rs. 9,000/- and would get the needful done. Thereafter the appellant got tem introduced to Dr. Jaswant Singh and the bargain was settled at Rs. 8500/-. At the asking of the said doctor, the appellant inflicted two injuries on the person of Surjit Kaur with a blade i.e. on her left hand and left leg. Thereafter, Dr. Jaswant Singh and Dr. Madan Singh got prepared medico-legal report of Surjit Kaur.
3. Labh Singh, complainant, in his application further stated that he had got prepared false medico-legal report of his wife with regard to the injuries in order to falsely implicate his brothers and he had committed a blunder, so, the amount be got refunded to him. The said application was marked to S.P. (Head Quarter). Labh Singh also filed his affidavit, Ex. PD. S.P. (Head Quarter) conducted the enquiry and submitted his report, Ex.PJ, and he found the contents of the application moved by Labh Singh to be correct. Consequently, a case under Section 420, 120-B IPC read with Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was registered against the appellant and the doctors.
4. The appellant was apprehended and he was interrogated on 13.7.1996 and in pursuance of his disclosure statement, Rs. 1500/- were recovered from the trunk kept at his residential house in a room. The same were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PH attested by Tarlochan Singh, ASI, Des Raj and Head Constable Manjit Singh on 13.7.1996. The statement of Labh Singh was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Ilaqa Magistrate.
5. Later on Labh Singh filed an affidavit to the effect that he did not pay any amount to Dr. Jaswant Singh and in fact, he did not know him. So, the names of the doctors were shown in Column No. 2.
6. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was put up in the Court against the appellant.
7. Having made out a prima-facie case, the appellant was charged under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. In order to prove the allegations, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses.
9. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false implication.
10. After hearing learned PP for the State and the defence counsel, the learned Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide judgment dated 17.4.2002 found the appellant guilty and convicted him under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced vide order of even date as stated in the earlier part of the judgment.
11. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 17.4.2002, the accused has filed the present appeal.
12. I have heard Shri Sandeep Majithia, Advocate, counsel for the appellant, Ms. R.K. Nihalsinghwala, DAG, Punjab, and carefully gone through the record.
13. PW-1 Labh Singh is the complaint in this case. He has not supported the prosecution version. He categorically stated that he did not know the appellant but his wife knew him. He further stated that nobody had demanded any amount from him and he did not withdraw any amount from the bank. He further stated that he did not pay any amount to the appellant. He further stated that the appellant did not cause any injury to his wife. He was declared hostile but the learned Public Prosecutor could not get any benefit to the prosecution out of his cross-examination. In cross-examination by the defence counsel, he stated that he was made to sit in the police for 12-13 days before he was produced before the Magistrate for recording his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Thus, according to the complainant he had neither paid any amount to the appellant, nor, he had demanded any amount.
14. It is the further case of the prosecution that the appellant, on interrogation, had made disclosure statement, Ex.PG, which was attested by PW-3 Manjit Singh, Head Constable, PW-4 Kishore Chand, SP, IRB, Patiala, PW-5 Tarlochan Singh, Sub Inspector and PW-7 Des Raj and then he led the police party to his house in Village Talian and got recovered Rs. 1500/- from the trunk which was lying in his house and the said currency notes were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PH attested by Manjit Singh, Tarlochan Singh and Des Raj. PW-7 Des Raj, the independent witness in this case, has not supported the prosecution version. He categorically stated that he did not know any person of the name of Raj Kumar and the appellant did not make any statement in his presence nor he got recovered Rs. 1500/- in his presence. He further stated that his thumb impressions were obtained by the police on some papers. In the absence of independent evidence, the testimony of police officials cannot be believed. Even if it is presumed that from the statement of PW-3 Manjit Singh, Head Constable, PW-4 Kishore Chand, SP, IRB, Patiala and PW-5 Tarlochan Singh, Sub Inspector, it is proved that Rs. 1500/- were recovered from the trunk of the appellant placed in his residential room in pursuance of his disclosure statement, then also it is not proved that this amount, alongwith other amount, he had taken as bribe from Labh Singh. PW-1 Labh Singh did not state that he had paid any amount to the appellant. It is not the case that the complainant had noted down the numbers of the notes and the same allied with the numbers of 15 currency notes recovered from the trunk of the appellant. The appellant was employed as a Peon. There is nothing improbable in it if the appellant had kept Rs. 1500/- at his house because it is a very small amount and it cannot be said that it is a bribe amount. It is further stated that Rs. 7000/- were paid to the doctors. The Doctors have not been examined to prove this fact that they had received Rs. 7000/-. Smt. Surjit Kaur wife of Labh Singh has not been examined to prove that the appellant had caused her two injuries with a blade with a view to get the medico-legal report to falsely implicate her opponents and the appellant had done so by getting Rs. 8500/-. At the cost of repetition. I may state that mere recovery of Rs. 1500/- does not connect the appellant with the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act.
15. In view of the discussion above, I hold that the prosecution has not been able to bring home guilt to the appellant beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. Consequently, the appeal is accepted and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him by giving him benefit of doubt. His bail bonds are discharged.