Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 767 (PNJ)

Om Parkash v. State Of Haryana

2005-07-21

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2005
Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. Appellants-Om Parkash and Umrao Singh have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 16.4.1993, passed by Special Judge, Narnaul, vide which they have been convicted under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred as `the Act) and order dated 17.4.1993, vide which they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each. 2. As per the prosecution version, Inspector Ganeshi Lal was investigating case FIR No. 45 dated 19.2.1992, Ex. PA, registered under Sections 302/201 IPC at Police Station Ateli regarding the murder of one Kallu Ram resident of Village Rampura. In the said FIR, appellant Umrao Singh and his family members were suspected to be involved. On 28.5.1992, when Ganeshi Lal, Inspector was present at his residence, both the appellants came to his house. Appellant Om Parkash offered him Rs. 10,000/- wrapped in a wax paper and requested him that he should help appellant-Umrai Singh and others in the aforesaid FIR. It is alleged that Inspector Ganeshi Lal said that he could not help them and refused to take the money, but the appellants insisted him to take the money. Thereupon, he took the money in the presence of Head Constables Mahabir and Abdul Subhan Khan, sealed the same in a parcel and prepared a memo Ex. PB, duly signed by the witnesses and sent the same to the police station, on the basis of which FIR in question, Ex. PC/1 was recorded by Nathu Ram Inspector, Police Station Narnaul. Thereafter, DSP, Head Quarter, came to his residence. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and took into possession the sealed parcel containing the currency notes vide recovery memo Ex. PD. After completing the investigation, the police submitted challan against the appellants under Section 12 of the Act. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined four witnesses. PW1 Jagdish Prasad HC, who stated that FIR No. 45 dated 19.2.1992, Ex. PA, was registered on the statement of one Sham Singh regarding the murder of his father Kallu. In that case, Raj Kumar alias Raju, Pappu alias Sham Singh both residents of Rampura and Bharat Raj alias Bhaju resident of Narnaul were arrested. PW2 Ganeshi Lal Inspector, PW3 Mahabir HC and PW4 Jagwant Singh, DSP deposed regarding the alleged occurrence. PWs. PA, was registered on the statement of one Sham Singh regarding the murder of his father Kallu. In that case, Raj Kumar alias Raju, Pappu alias Sham Singh both residents of Rampura and Bharat Raj alias Bhaju resident of Narnaul were arrested. PW2 Ganeshi Lal Inspector, PW3 Mahabir HC and PW4 Jagwant Singh, DSP deposed regarding the alleged occurrence. PWs. Abdul Subhan Khan and Ram Niwas were given up being unnecessary. 4. The appellants in their statements under Section 313 of the Code denied all the allegations. However, they stated that on the day of the alleged occurrence, they had come to the Courts to engage a lawyer and Umrao Singh was carrying money in his pocket. Inspector Ganeshi Lal demanded the money and snatched the same from Umrao Singh, to which Om Parkash objected and said that he will report the matter to the higher authorities. Thereupon, Inspector Ganeshi Lal falsely implicated both the appellants in this case by alleging that an attempt was made to give him bribe. 5. After hearing the arguments and considering the evidence, available on the record, the trial Court convicted both the appellants under Section 12 of the Act and sentenced them, as mentioned in the first para of this judgment. 6. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that both the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case by Inspector Ganeshi Lal. He submitted that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was snatched by Ganeshi Lal from Umrao Singh in the Court premises and when the appellants objected to the same, he lodged the instant false FIR against them. Learned counsel further submitted that no independent witness was associated and conviction has been made simply on the basis of statement of Inspector Ganeshi Lal and HC Mahabir. Even HC Abdul Subhan Khan, who is alleged to be present on the spot, has not been examined. Therefore, conviction of the appellants only on the basis of statements of the official witnesses without any corroboration from independent witness is not safe. He further contended that even the notes which have been produced by Ganeshi Lal do not bear by identification to show that these are the same notes, which were given to him by the appellants. Therefore, conviction of the appellants only on the basis of statements of the official witnesses without any corroboration from independent witness is not safe. He further contended that even the notes which have been produced by Ganeshi Lal do not bear by identification to show that these are the same notes, which were given to him by the appellants. Even the DSP had not signed the notes and the envelope does not contain his signatures. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellants are the poor agriculturists and they are not involved in any criminal case. Even in the FIR, Ex. PA, which was being investigated by Inspector Ganeshi Lal, appellant Umrao Singh and his family members were not found involved and they were not challaned. This shows that the case of the prosecution is false. 8. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, submitted that in the instant case, the prosecution has fully established its case. The payment of Rs. 10,000/- as bribe to Inspector Ganeshi Lal has been duly proved by the Inspector himself, PW3 HC Mahabir and PW4 DSP Jagwant Singh. 9. From the statement of PW1 HC Jagdish Parsad, it has been established on record that case FIR No. 45 of 1992, Ex. PA, for the murder of one Kallu Ram resident of Rampura was pending, in which Inspector Ganeshi Lal was the Investigating Officer. In that case, appellant-Umrao Singh and his family members were suspected to be involved. It has also been proved that both the appellants went to the house of Inspector Ganeshi Lal and offered him Rs. 10,000/- as bribe to help the accused in the aforesaid FIR, Ex. PA. It is the admitted case of the appellants that the recovered notes belong to them. Their defence is that these notes were snatched from them by Inspector Ganeshi Lal in the Court premises and when a protest was raised by them, false FIR was registered against them. In support of their version, the appellants did not lead any evidence. In these circumstances, the version given by the prosecution witnesses cannot be thrown away merely on the ground that they are the official witnesses and no independent witness was associated. In support of their version, the appellants did not lead any evidence. In these circumstances, the version given by the prosecution witnesses cannot be thrown away merely on the ground that they are the official witnesses and no independent witness was associated. The alleged occurrence took place at 7 a.m. in the house of Inspector Ganeshi Lal and at that time, only two Head Constables were present on their duty and no independent witness was available. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that non-examination of independent witness is fatal to the prosecution case. During the course of arguments, counsel for the appellants could not point out any substantial infirmity or illegality in the conviction of the appellants. Therefore, their conviction under Section 12 of the Act is upheld. 10. Regarding the quantum of sentence, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that both the appellants are facing the protracted trial for the last 13 years. He further submitted that appellant-Umrao Singh is 85 years of age and is suffering from many ailments and is at the fag end of his life. He submitted that keeping in view these facts, lenient view may be taken regarding the quantum of sentence. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that keeping in view the nature of the offence committed by the appellants, no lenient view regarding quantum of sentence should be taken. 11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, regarding the quantum of sentence, I find force in the submission of counsel for the appellants. In this case, the alleged occurrence took place in the year 1992. Both the appellants are villagers and are not involved in any other criminal cases. They have faced the protracted trial of about 13 years. During this period, they remained on bail but did not involve in any criminal activity. Appellant Umrao Singh is 85 years of age. According to learned counsel for the appellants, he is suffering from old age ailments and is at the fag end of his life. It is pertinent to mention here that though appellant-Umrao Singh and his family members were suspected as accused in FIR No. 45 dated 19.2.1992, Ex. PA, registered under Sections 302/201 IPC at Police Station Ateli, but subsequently, during investigation, they were not found involved in the said case. Challan was filed against the other accused. It is pertinent to mention here that though appellant-Umrao Singh and his family members were suspected as accused in FIR No. 45 dated 19.2.1992, Ex. PA, registered under Sections 302/201 IPC at Police Station Ateli, but subsequently, during investigation, they were not found involved in the said case. Challan was filed against the other accused. In these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice will be met if the sentence award to appellant Om Parkash is reduced to six months, the minimum prescribed for the offence under Section 12 of the Act. However, keeping in view the old age and ailments, the sentence awarded to appellant- Umrao Singh is reduced to already undergone. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.