Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

By the time the case came up for trial complainant Rajendra Dutt was dead and his evidence was not available. Prosecution examined the two motbirs Ram Babu and Keshar Mal, Dy. SP, ACD Mahavir Prasad, Clerk Prahlad Narayan, Driver Bajrang Singh and two others.

Statement of the accused was recorded under s. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he offered himself as a witness in his defence. In his evidence he stated that on the date of occurrence around 4.30 p.m. when he was sitting in his cot complainant Rajendra Dutt came and took a seat in the chair placed nearby. Appellant enquired why he had come and whether he had brought any written complaint against Clerk Mr. Singhal. According to him, the complainant replied that action be taken against Singhal by recording his statement whereupon the appellant said that if the complainant has any grievance he should come with a written complaint. Appellant further stated that thereafter he went to the bath room for spitting cough and he came out and sat on the cot. Complainant Rajendra Dutt enquired whether he can drink water from a jug which was lying there. Thereafter Rajendra Dutt went out of the room and soon thereafter 8 persons including Rajendra Dutt entered the room. He stated that two of the members of the raiding party caught his hands and when he tried to get himself released from the grip of those persons the grip tightened. One of the members of the raiding party then told him that he was Dy. SP, ACD, Ajmer and called upon him to produce Rs. 150/- he had taken from Rajendra Dutt. Appellant stated that he immediately told the Dy. SP that he had not accepted any money from Rajendra Dutt whereupon the Dy. SP came near him and put his hand in the pocket of the garment put on by the appellant. Appellant objected to any search being taken and insisted on keeping two respectable persons present. He further stated that Dy. SP quarrelled with him and then he sent a telephone message to S.P, Ajmer that a Factory Inspector has quarrelled with him and he should be provided with extra police help. Thereafter his hands were dipped in a solution but the colour of the solution did not change and remained white. Appellant then told the Dy. SP that Rajendra Dutt had come to complain against one Singhal, a Clerk and in support of this he produced Ext. D-2 marked collectively in respect of five letters. At this stage the Dy. SP according to the appellant asked Rajendra Dutt why he had given a false signal whereupon the complainant Rajendra Dutt informed the Dy SP that the bribe money was lying under the pillow whereupon the Dy SP removed the pillow and collected the currency notes. He further stated that he has been involved in this false case at the instance of K.C. Sogani, Factory Manager of Krishna Mills, Beawar. This was broadly the defence of the appellant as collected from his evidence.

It is now time to briefly refer to some of the omissions and contradictions brought to our notice with a view to persuading us to reject the testimony of both these witnesses. It was pointed out that according to Ram Babu both he and Keshar Mal told the Dy SP that the currency notes were under the pillow while according to Keshar Mal it was Ram Babu who pointed out that the currency notes were under the pillow. We find no contradiction in this statement because if plural used by Ram Babu was to be relied upon as a contradiction, cross-examination ought to have been directed on this point. It is necessary to point out that the cross-examination of both the witnesses is scrappy, jumpy and not pursuant to any set theory of defence. It is worthwhile to note that there is not the slightest challenge to the statement of both these witnesses that while waiting in the lobby outside the room both of them saw Rajendra Dutt giving marked currency notes to the appellant and appellant accepting the same and keeping them underneath the pillow. It was also urged that both the witnesses in their respective statements in the course of investigation have not referred that they pointed out that the currency notes were kept under the pillow. A further omission was pointed out that while Mahavir Prasad has stated that accused started quarrelling with him which necessitated summoning additional police help, both the witnesses while referring to the quarrel picked up by the appellant so as to support the evidence of Mahavir Prasad have failed to refer to this aspect in their statements in the course investigation. These are omissions of trivial details and have hardly any bearing on the main part of the prosecution case. Along with this the earlier omission in the statement of Keshar Mal already discussed was reiterated. In our opinion the so- called inner variations between the evidence of these two witnesses and omissions of trivial details would not cause any dent in the testimony of these two witnesses. Mr. Anthony after referring to Darshan Lal v. Delhi Administration(1), urged that if Mahavir Prasad took search of the appellant for recovering the bribe it would show that neither Ram Babu nor Keshar Mal had seen appellant keeping marked currency notes under the pillow. Such an inference cannot be drawn. Ordinarily the police officer would start searching the person of appellant and while he was doing that act, he was told where the currency notes were kept by the appellant. Therefore, no such inference is permissible.

Mr. Anthony urged that there are certain tell-tale circumstances in the case which would render the defence plausible. It was urged that the appellant did not disclose any guilty syndrome when the raiding party entered his room and at the first question he denied having accepted any bribe from Rajendra Dutt. How would these two circumstances be sufficient to reject the otherwise reliable testimony ? A person with a strong will would not be upset and may remain cool and collected. The appellant did pick up a quarrel with the Dy SP. Why ? His suggestion that he insisted on two independent witnesses being kept present appears to be an afterthought. The fact that the appellant picked up a quarrel is borne out from the evidence of the persons present there and by the action of the Dy SP in summoning additional police help. Therefore, we find no circumstances which would impinge upon the prosecution case.