Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jarnail Singh vs State Of Punjab on 3 September, 2014
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl. Appeal No. S-1922-SB of 2010 (O&M) -1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Appeal No. S-1922-SB of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 03.9.2014
ASI Jarnail Singh ......Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. J.S.Bedi, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Navkeerat Singh, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Deep Singh, AAG, Punjab.
****
SABINA, J.
Appellant had faced trial in FIR No. 4 dated 27.7.2000 under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('Act' for short), registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Amarjit Singh along with his friends, was sitting in the shop of his friend on 25.7.2000. While they were consuming liquor, appellant along with 2-3 police officials came in a car and started giving beatings to them. Appellant asserted that complainant and his friends by consuming liquor in the shop, were creating nuisance. Complainant was taken by the appellant in his car. The car of the complainant was driven by his driver to the police post. Appellant abused and threatened the complainant. Complainant was got medically examined. Appellant assured the complainant that he would set him free in case he (complainant) paid him ` 5,000/-. Complainant asserted that he did not have any money with him. Thereafter, appellant released the complainant and took the phone GURPREET SINGH 2014.09.06 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. S-1922-SB of 2010 (O&M) -2- number of the complainant. Thereafter, complainant came back to his house in his car. On 27.7.2000, complainant received a phone call from the police post that he should appear there. Appellant demanded ` 5,000/- as bribe money from the complainant. Complainant approached Harjap Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (hereinafter referred as 'DSP') and a raid was organized. Complainant handed over 10 currency notes in the denomination of ` 500/- each to the DSP, who returned the same to the complainant, after application of phenolphthalein powder ('P- Powder' for short). Gurmeet Singh was appointed as a shadow witness and was instructed to accompany the complainant and give a signal to the raiding party after the bribe money was accepted by the appellant on demand. Demonstration qua working of P-Powder was shown to the witnesses by the DSP. Dr. Tarakjot Singh and Parshotam Singh were joined as official witnesses. Thereafter, the raiding party left for the raid. Complainant and the shadow witness went inside the office of the appellant. Complainant told the appellant that he had brought the money as desired by him. Appellant told the complainant to hand over the money to Madan Lal, who was present there. Complainant handed over the tainted currency notes to the appellant who further gave the same to Madan Lal and he kept the same in the left pocket of his pant. On receipt of signal from the shadow witness, DSP along with the remaining members of the raiding party reached the spot. When the fingers of the appellant were dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, colour of the solution turned pink. The said solution was put in a nip and was made into sealed parcel and was taken in possession. When the fingers of Madan Lal were dipped in a GURPREET SINGH 2014.09.06 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. S-1922-SB of 2010 (O&M) -3- solution of sodium carbonate, colour of the solution turned pink. The said solution was put in a nip and was made into sealed parcel and was taken in possession. The tainted currency notes were recovered from Madan Lal. When the left pant pocket of Madan Lal was dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, colour of the solution turned pink. The said solution was put in a nip and was made into sealed parcel and was taken in possession.
After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant.
So far as Madan Lal is concerned, he was discharged by the Trial Court.
Charge was framed against the appellant under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Act.
In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 11 witnesses during trial.
Appellant when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the close of prosecution evidence, prayed as under:-
"I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant in connivance with vigilance officials. Complainant was annoyed with me as I had arrested him in a case under Section 290/510 IPC for the offence of creating nuisance and obstructing traffic in a drunkard condition at unmanned railway crossing situated on Dhuri Railway line Ludhiana. IO of this case is thick with the complainant. I had left for patrolling in the morning of 27.7.2k from police post Morado for patrolling and I did not come back to Pp Marodo throughout the remaining GURPREET SINGH 2014.09.06 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. S-1922-SB of 2010 (O&M) -4- time of 27.7.2k. I was never arrested by the vigilance officials in this case. I was acquitted by the court at Mohali in a false case lodged against me under Section 224 IPC. I am innocent."
Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 11.8.2010 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Act. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant has been falsely involved in this case. In fact, appellant was not arrested at the spot nor the tainted currency notes were recovered from him. In fact, FIR No. 208 dated 28.7.2000 was registered against the appellant under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) at Police Station Mohali for having absconded from the police custody but the appellant was acquitted in the said case. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the shadow witness had not supported the prosecution case and the official witness PW-3 Dr. Tarakjot Singh was a stock witness of the prosecution.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the appeal and has submitted that appellant was caught red handed while accepting bribe in a raid organized by the vigilance authorities. The prosecution witnesses had duly proved the prosecution case.
In the present case, complainant while appearing in the witness box as PW-8, has deposed as per the prosecution case. Shadow witness Gurmeet Singh, while appearing in the witness box GURPREET SINGH 2014.09.06 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. S-1922-SB of 2010 (O&M) -5- as PW-4, did not support the prosecution case. So far as recovery of the tainted currency notes from Madan Lal is concerned, PW-3 Dr. Tarakjot Singh and PW-11 DSP Harjap Singh have duly corroborated the statement of the complainant in this regard. Although, PW-3, PW-8 and PW-11 have deposed as per the prosecution case, but the prosecution story is rendered doubtful.
In the present case, complainant was taken in custody as he was found consuming liquor on 25.7.2000. Admittedly, medical examination of the complainant was conducted. Thereafter, complainant was released on bail. From the cross- examination of the complainant, it was evident that he was released on bail on 11/11.30 P.M. Medical examination of the complainant was got conducted by the police officials Pawan and Santosh at Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. Thus, complainant was released on bail on 25.7.2000. Therefore, there was no occasion for the appellant to have demanded bribe from the complainant for releasing him on bail as on the day of raid, complainant had already been released on bail by the appellant. Further, on the day of raid, bribe money was not recovered from the possession of the appellant. Rather, bribe money was allegedly recovered from Madan Lal, who was discharged by the Trial Court. Although, as per the DSP, on the day of raid, proceedings of raid were conducted but the said witness, in his cross-examination, deposed that he did not prepare the arrest memo of the appellant at the spot. Thus, as per the DSP, arrest memo of the appellant was not prepared. Later FIR No. 208 dated 28.7.2000 under Section 224 IPC was registered against the appellant at Police Station Mohali on the allegations that he was found missing from the lock up. Appellant was acquitted in the said case vide judgment Ex. DX. A perusal of the GURPREET SINGH 2014.09.06 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. S-1922-SB of 2010 (O&M) -6- said judgment reveals that appellant had been sent to police lock up in FIR No. 4 dated 27.7.2000 under Section 7/13(2) of the Act. However, appellant was found missing. The Trial Court while ordering the acquittal of the appellant qua commission of offence punishable under Section 224 IPC, has held that as per the story of the prosecution, Inspector Rajinder Singh had found MHC C1 Narinder Kumar and Constable Hardeep Singh guard to be accomplices in helping the appellant to flee but the said persons were found innocent during investigation. The Court has held that it was doubtful as to whether the appellant had actually been put up in the lock up by Inspector Zora Singh Brar. Inspector Zora Singh Brar was not examined in this case. DSP in the present case has not deposed to the effect that after the arrest of the appellant, he was sent to police lock up.
So far as the plea put up by the complainant that he has received a phone call from the appellant on 27.7.2000 from the police post is concerned, there is no corroborative evidence in this regard.
Thus, in the present case, it is evident that prosecution has not come to the Court with the true story. Hence, the prosecution case is rendered doubtful. It is a settled proposition of law that whenever there is doubt in the prosecution story, the benefit of the same has to be extended to the accused. In the present case, prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. In these circumstances, the learned Trial Court erred in ordering the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Act.
GURPREET SINGH Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Appellant is 2014.09.06 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No. S-1922-SB of 2010 (O&M) -7- acquitted of the charge framed against him. Consequently, the impugned judgment/order of conviction and sentence of the appellant dated 11.8.2010, are set aside.
(SABINA) JUDGE September 03, 2014 Gurpreet GURPREET SINGH 2014.09.06 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh