Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. The main witness in respect of the events of the evening of 18 instant are panch witness Dahyabhai, police sub inspector Erulkar and constable Santramji (Ex. 27) and it is necessary to summarize in brief the evidence of these witnesses before approaching it. But before we do so it would be convenient to refer to the defence of head constable Chandrapal just mentioned. He was serving in the Anti-Corruption Office in February, 1963. He states that at about noon on 18 instant of that month. Ramanlal lodged his complaint. Panchas were called. Then Ramanlal produced ten notes of rupees ten each. He applied anthracene powder on them. Before he applied the powder he showed those to us to the panchas under ultra-violet light and nothing was found on them. Then he applied anthracene powder to the notes and robbed it out with a piece of cloth and then he showed them in ordinary daylight but nothing was found on them. Then they two shown in ultra violet and shine of light blue colour of the powder was found on the notes. Then he placed those currency notes in the right pocket of Ramanlal's pant. Then he deposes about what happened with Ramanlal came to that office at about 4 in the evening. The same procedure was again gone through. After he had placed the notes this time also in the right pocket of Ramanlal's pant and washed his hands, he accompanied with the raiding party to the Navrangpura police station. He does not say any thing about the raid because he was concerned not with the raid but with the examination of persons and articles under the ultra-violet lamp with a view to detect traces of anthracene powder. He states that at the police station he examined the hands of accused 1 Dave in the light of the ultra violet lamp and found nothing there. Then he was taken to a store, meaning Sanghvi Stores, where the owner of the store produced a currency note of Rs. 10 it was examined in the ultra-violet light which showed a shine of light blue colour of powder. The hands of the owner were also examined in the ultra-violet lamp and some shine was found on his hands. Then according to him, he went to Laxmi Pan-House and there the owner of that pan-house took our currency notes from his cash box out of which when they were examined in the ultra-violet light three were found to be shining with the shine of anthracene powder. Similarly the hands of the shop owner were also examined and they also disclosed the same shine. He also visited two other shops and carried out further experiment but nothing was found having the shine of anthracene powder. Then they came back to Navrangpura police station and examined the room in which police sub-inspector Dave used to sit, in ultra-violet light. As a result of this examination he found a shine of anthracene powder on a corner of one table, on a bench and on the floor in that room. The hands of the complainant and his clothes were examined in ultra-violet light and shine of anthracene powder was found on his right hand and the right pocket of his pant. He goes on to say that at about 1 p.m., in the same night i.e., the night between 18 and 19 instants, he along with Deputy Superintendent Medh, two panchas and members of staff went to the house of accused 2. He examined the person of accused 2 in ultra-violet light and found shine of anthracene powder on both his hands, right up to the elbows, on the lips, the eye-brows and the hair. The evidence of this witness does not directly bear on the giving of the bribe or the acceptance of the bribe but has relevance as some of the notes used in payment of the bribe were traced immediately after the alleged payment of the bribe with two shopkeepers near the Navrangpura police station. With these observations we may proceed now to consider the evidence of other witnesses in so far as it has a bearing on the giving and acceptance of the bribe.

24. The next contention of law urged by Sri Shelat is that Ramanlal being a decoy or a trap witness. Dahyabhai being not a wholly independent or reliable witness and the police witnesses, viz., Erulkar, Santramji and Chandrapal being members of the raiding party were all partisan witnesses and in law their evidence cannot be accepted as sufficient unless it is corroborated in material particulars from other independent evidence both as regards the commission of the offence and as regards the identity of the offender. In support of this proposition he relied on the observation of the Supreme Court in Major R. G. Barsay v. State of Bombay (A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1762). We shall consider those observations presently, but before we do so, we would like to refer to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court to which Sri Nanavati for the State has invited our attention. That decision is in State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh (A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 500). That was a case in which the accused who was a sub-inspector in charge of the police station, was alleged to have demanded a bribe of Rs. 50 from two persons, one Bhagwandas who was a shopkeeper dealing in grain and the other Mahavir Prasad who purchased grains from the said Bhagwandas. It was reported to the police that Bhagwandas had sold grains in black market to the said Mahavir Prasad and on the basis of the report the accused Basawan Singh attached the grains that were being carried on two ponies by Mahavir Prasad, after he had purchased from the shop. While the grains were still lying with the police the alleged demand of a bribe was made. Both Bhagwandas and Mahavir Prasad reported to the Anti-Corruption Department of the Government of Bihar, as a result of which their complaints were recorded by one Mukherji, a Deputy Secretary to the Government of Bihar and he asked the police to lay a trap. The raiding party consisted of the two decoys and three officers, viz., Mukherji, Deputy Secretary, Deputy Superintendent Dharnidhar Mishra and a magistrate Rudra Dev Sahai. They proceeded to the house of the accused. The two decoy witnesses went up to the house of the accused and passed on Rs. 50 each to the accused and thereafter the three officer, viz., Mukherji, Misra and Sahai, rushed to the house (verandah) were the accused and the two witnesses standing and caught hold of the accused. The accused tried to throw away the notes which were in his hands but was prevented from doing so. Panchas were called and a panchnama was made and it was found that there were nine notes in the hands of the accused. The missing tenth note was on search found in a crumpled condition in the verandah of the accused. Before the Court the evidence of the two decoy witnesses and the three officers and two panchas was led. So far as panchas were concerned they were not present at the time when the three officers caught hold of the accused. The only important part of their testimony was the finding of a crumpled note in the verandah. The learned Special Judge who tried the case accepted the prosecution evidence as trustworthy, and convicted the accused. Against that conviction the accused went in appeal to the High Court and the learned Judge who heard the appeal acquitted him on the main ground that there was no independent witness to support the testimony of the raiding party which consisted of two decoy witnesses, two magistrates and a police officer. For holding that view the learned Judge relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh (A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 322). Against the acquittal the State came in appeal to the Supreme Court and the principal questions which arose for decision in the appeal were : firstly, whether the learned Judge of the High Court was right in his view that the decision in Shiv Bahadur Singh case (A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 322) laid down any universal or inflexible rule that the testimony of witnesses who formed the raiding party must be discarded unless corroborated by independent witnesses; secondly, if not, what was the correct rule with regard to such testimony in cases of this nature, and thirdly, whether the learned Judge was right in his view that there was no independent corroboration of the testimoney of the witnesses of the raiding party in that case. The Supreme Court held that its earlier decision in Shiv Bahadur Singh case (A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 322) did not lay down any such rule as was inferred by the learned Judge of the High Court. They went on to say :

Their lordships proceeded to examine the evidence in that case in the light of these considerations. They found no difficulty in accepting the testimony of the raiding party in that case and they stated that testimony received even otherwise sufficient corroboration from the finding of the crumpled note as deposed by the panch witnesses. Accordingly the appeal was allowed and the acquittal was set aside and the accused was convicted. The principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in that decision are a sufficient answer to the argument urged by Sri Shelat on behalf of the appellants that the evidence of decoy witnesses or the members of the raiding party cannot be accepted unless corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence both as regards the commission of the crime and the identity of the offender. In that Supreme Court case the witnesses were either decoy witnesses or officers who formed the raiding party. The finding of the crumpled note was the only independent piece of evidence. The prosecution case rested substantially if not wholly on the oral evidence of the five witnesses in that case. That evidence was held sufficient in an acquittal appeal. Sri Shelat, however, argued that the later decision of the Supreme Court to which he has referred makes a difference in this legal position and we may now, therefore, turn to that decision. Before referring to the facts of that case it will be noticed that the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh (A.I.R. 1958 S.C. 500) (vide supra) is a decision by five Judges whereas the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Major R. G. Barsay v. State of Bombay (A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1762) (vide supra) on which reliance has been placed by Sri Shelat is a decision of three Judges. Now, in that case, some army officers were prosecuted in respect of misappropriation of large amounts of army stores and one of the army officers so prosecuted was Major Barsay in that case, who was second in command of the army depot and was in charge of the store section. The prosecution case substantially rested on the testimony of one Lawrence who was at the relevant time acting as a security officer in that depot. Major Barsay planned a large-scale conspiracy for the removal of the stores and took into confidence several officers and one of the persons whom he took into confidence was this witness Lawrence. Lawrence took part in the plans of the conspirators from time to time and was instrumental in fabricating gate-pass so that the lorries containing the materials might be taken out from the gate and in fact accompanied the lorries on the date the lorries were eventually attached, after they were taken out from the gate. It appears that Lawrence ostensibly joined the conspiracy with a view to bring to book the culprits and was informing the superior officers and the police orally and in writing from time to time as and when the important events were taking place. The Special Judge who tried the case held on a consideration of the evidence before him that all the charges were made out against Major Barsay and he was of the view that there was no good ground to discard the evidence of Lawrence but he placed him in the category of an interested witness whose testimony required independent corroboration before acceptance. In his judgment the learned Special Judge observed as under :

26. Now it is clear that on this finding that a presumption under S. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, would arise, that unless the contrary is proved the accused accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain a gratification in the sum of Rs. 100 as a motive or reward such as mentioned in S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and it would be for the accused to rebut that presumption. The accused have made no attempt to do so and no evidence has been led on behalf of the accused and no explanation has been tendered as to why and what for that money was demanded or accepted. The only explanation tendered is that the money was, if at all, paid not to accused 1 or accused 2, but to police sub-inspector Sisodiya. That explanation cannot rebut the presumption. But even as to the story that the money was paid to police sub inspector Sisodiya there is no material in support of that story. The story is based on the allegation that accused 1 is on bad terms with police sub-inspector Sisodiya. In support of that allegation one witness was examined, viz., Keshavlal (Ex. 34). Keshavlal was at the relevant times working as a constable in Navrangpura police station. He was dismissed before his evidence was recorded. He says that at that time there were four sub-inspectors attached to Navrangpura police-station, out of them one was accused 1 and the other police sub-inspector Sisodiya. He goes on to say that accused 1 and police sub inspector Sisodiya were in cross-terms and they were not speaking with each other when they were in Navrangpura police station and that a quarrel had taken place between them a month before this incident, that is, in the month of January 1963. He does not say what was that quarrel. He has been disbelieved by the learned trial Judge and in our opinion rightly. In his cross-examination he has stated that he did not see accused 2 at the police station on the day in question at the time of the incident, or at any time throughout the day. This statement which obviously was made to favour accused 2 was a false statement for even according to accused 2 he was at the police station till 5 p.m. and as regards the period after 5 p.m. There is abundant evidence led by the prosecution to show that accused 2 was present. Even otherwise the evidence of this witness does not help the defence for there is nothing in his evidence to show that on the day in question police sub-inspector Sisodiya was at the police station. According to him two police officers were at the police station. One was admittedly accused 1. The other he stated was police sub inspector Rana. At attempt was made to prove the presence of police sub inspector Sisodiya at the police station at the relevant time and the Deputy Superintendent Medh was asked about it. Medh denies the presence of police sub-inspector Sisodiya at the time of raid. It would appear that Sisodiya came to the police station thereafter because Ramanlal in his cross-examination has stated that after the raid was over police sub-inspector Sisodiya was present. His presence after the raid, however, cannot help the defence. There is therefore no evidence led by the defence and no material placed before the Court to rebut the presumption arising under S. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. A mere explanation suggested in the statement of the accused is not sufficient to discharge the burden even if the explanation is reasonable and probable, which in this case it is not. The defence must go a little further and show that the explanation is a true one. [See Dhanvantrai Balwantra Desai v. State of Maharashtra (1963 - II L.L.J. 415).] In the present case not only the defence has made no attempt to rebut the presumption but the explanation offered viz., that the payment must have been made to and accepted buy police sub-inspector Sisodiya, does not appear either reasonable or probable.