Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 329 (PNJ)

Sukhchain Singh v. State Of Punjab

2010-01-14

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2010
Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Sukhchain Singh has challenged his conviction under Sec.13 (1) (d)of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "1988 Act"), for which he was punished under Sec.13 (2) of 1988 Act, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. The appellant was named as accused in case FIR No.91 dated 26.9.1994 registered at Police Station Sidhwan Bet, under Sec.13 (2) of 1988 Act. One jarnail Singh son of Kirpal Singh was also named as co-accused. The trial Court acquitted Jarnail Singh. Present appellant has prayed that impugned judgment be set aside as same cannot be sustained on law and facts of the case. A glaring feature of this case is that no recovery of the amount of bribe was effected from the appellant or his co-accused. Five months after the alleged amount of bribe was paid, complainant has levelled this bald allegation on basis of the affidavit submitted to the police authorities. Except the oral allegation that the amount was paid, there is nothing on the record to substantiate this allegation. No raiding party was constituted. There is no shadow witness. There is no independent witness to corroborate the testimony of complainant. Having noticed the striking features of the case, I proceed to notice facts, evidence and arguments raised. Complainant Jeeto Bai wife of Gurdeep Singh sworn an affidavit on 28.9.1994. The affidavit has been exhibited as Ex. PF. Affidavit Ex. PF, when translated to english, read as under:- AFFIDAVIT 3. I, Smt. Jeeto Bai wife of Gurdeep Singh, resident of talwara, Police Station Sidhwan Bet, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana, aged about 32/33 years, depose as under:- 1. That the deponent is resident of village Talwara. On 22.4.1994, at about 8.30 p. M. , ASI Sukhchain Singh and one PHG (Jawan) came to our house and started beating my husband Gurdeep Singh. They conducted search of our house. Nothing was found. At that time, thanedar Sukhchain singh demanded Rs.4,000/-and gave a threat that in case the amount is not paid, case of recovery of 20 Kgs. of poppy husk or working still shall be registered. They took my husband to police Station. They kept him for that night there and also gave him beatings. Nothing was found. At that time, thanedar Sukhchain singh demanded Rs.4,000/-and gave a threat that in case the amount is not paid, case of recovery of 20 Kgs. of poppy husk or working still shall be registered. They took my husband to police Station. They kept him for that night there and also gave him beatings. In the morning, fearing that case may not be registered, I took Rs.2,000/- from my mother-in-law Bharwa Bai and borrowed another Rs.2,000/- from my father Pehalwan Singh alias Balwan and reached the Police Station on 23.4.1994 and gave rs,4,000/- to Thanedar Sukhchain Singh in his Government quarter in presence of my husband Gurdeep Singh and father balwan Singh. We never intended to give this amount. ASI Sukhchain Singh forcibly compelled us to give the amount. RTI jeeto Bai, deponent dated 28.9.1994. Verification: attested that my above said statement is true and correct. RTI Jeeto Bai, deponent dated 28.9.1994. 4. Fir was registered before the submission of the affidavit. Prosecution has not got the FIR exhibited. The Station House Officer, police Station Sidhwan Bet, who registered the FIR, has not been examined. No police witness except Randhir Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, PW.4, to whom this affidavit was tendered, had appeared in the witness box. Be as it may, from the affidavit, following two facts are discernible: i) Demand of alleged amount of bribe was made on 22.4.1994. ii) The amount was paid on 23.4.1994. The FIR was registered on 26.9.1994 and the affidavit was sworn on 28.9.1994. Therefore, complaint regarding acceptance of alleged bribe was made by the complainant after five months. 5. It is now time to notice the evidence led by the prosecution. Hardip singh, Sub Inspector, appeared as PW.1. He stated that Jarnail Singh, Head constable, No.260 and Sukhchain Singh, Head Constable, No.263 were posted at police Station Jagraon, vide office order dated 30.11.1994. Jarnail Singh, Head constable was transferred from Moharrir Head Constable to Police Station sidhwan Bet and Sukhchain Singh, Head Constable, was transferred from the post of Moharrir Head Constable to Head Constable in Police Station Sidhwan Bet. In cross-examination, he stated that preliminary investigation of the case was done by Randhir Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sidhwan Bet. Randhir singh also remained posted at Sidhwan Bet as Inspector/station House Officer. 6. Jito Bai, complainant, appeared as PW.2. In cross-examination, he stated that preliminary investigation of the case was done by Randhir Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sidhwan Bet. Randhir singh also remained posted at Sidhwan Bet as Inspector/station House Officer. 6. Jito Bai, complainant, appeared as PW.2. In examination-in-chief, this witness stated as under:- "In the month of Har about one year back, at about 8.30 P. M. Sukhchain Singh ASI came to our house. He was alone. It was about 8 or 10 P. M. and he arrested my husband and took him away. Sukhchain Singh accused had demanded Rs.4000/- from me for the release of my husband and I took the amount from my mother-in-law and paid the same to the accused. The accused Sukhchain Singh had threatened that in case the payment was not paid he will involve him in poppy husk or working still case. I had taken Rs.2000/- from my mother-in- law and Rs.2000/- from my father pehalwan for payment to the accused. I alone had gone to the Police Station sidhwanbet and had made the payment to the accused. None else was present when the payment was made by me. After that, Sukhchain Singh released my husband. I had given an affidavit also and I had thumb marked the same after admitting as correct. The same is Ex. PF. My statement was recorded by the D. S. P. (At this stage the Addl. P. P. submits that the witness has resiled from her previous statement, as such, the witness be declared hostile and he be allowed to cross examine the witness. The request is allowed)". After this witness was declared hostile, she was cross- examined by the additional Public Prosecutor. She admitted that she has stated in her statement that she was accompanied, on 23.4.1994, by her father Pehalwan Singh. She was also cross-examined by the accused. She stated that Randhir Singh was then posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police. Constable had come and taken her to the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police after about one month. She further stated that affidavit Ex. PF was got written by the Deputy superintendent of Police there and then he obtained her thumb impression. Thereafter, Deputy Superintendent of Police had taken her to the Tehsildar. She remained there for about ten minutes. No constable was there when the affidavit was got attested. She further stated that affidavit Ex. PF was got written by the Deputy superintendent of Police there and then he obtained her thumb impression. Thereafter, Deputy Superintendent of Police had taken her to the Tehsildar. She remained there for about ten minutes. No constable was there when the affidavit was got attested. This witness further stated that she had not gone to the deputy Superintendent of Police or the Station House Officer when she went to get her husband released. She stated that she had made a written complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police. After that Deputy Superintendent of police had called her. The Additional Public Prosecutor stated that there was no complaint with the prosecution. 7. Pw.3 Gurdeep Singh, husband of the complainant, corroborated her testimony. In cross-examination he stated that after about two months of the occurrence he was called by the Deputy Superintendent of Police through constable. His wife was also present. Deputy Superintendent of Police had purchased stamp paper. He got the stamp paper typed and obtained the signatures of the wife of this witness. Then, they were produced before the Tehsildar. Thereafter, Deputy Superintendent of Police had taken these witnesses to the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police. This witness further stated that his wife had given an application regarding the demand of money by the accused after about ten days of the occurrence. The application was sent through post. 8. Randhir Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, appeared as PW.4. He stated that on 22.4.1994 when he was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, sidhwan Bet, Jagraon. On that date, he recorded the statement of Jeeto Bai correctly. The statement was exhibited as Ex. PG. Thereafter, Jeeto Bai had produced affidavit Ex. PF. He proved rough site plan Ex. PI, and sanction letter ex. PK. It is further stated that he submitted report under Sec.173 Cr. P. C. He denied that affidavit was got prepared by him. 9. Gurdev Singh Sibia appeared as PW.5. He stated that he had sold the stamp paper on which affidavit Ex. PF was sworn by Jeeto Bai. Ajay Kumar Sood, tehsildar, appeared as PW.6 and stated that affidavit Ex. PF of Jeeto Bai was attested by him. No other witness was examined. 10. Thereafter, prosecution closed its evidence. All the incriminating circumstances were put to accused and their statements under Sec.313 cr. P. C. were recorded. PF was sworn by Jeeto Bai. Ajay Kumar Sood, tehsildar, appeared as PW.6 and stated that affidavit Ex. PF of Jeeto Bai was attested by him. No other witness was examined. 10. Thereafter, prosecution closed its evidence. All the incriminating circumstances were put to accused and their statements under Sec.313 cr. P. C. were recorded. Sukhchain Singh, appellant, stated that Gurnam Singh was gunman of Randhir Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police. He had a dispute with gurnam Singh, therefore, he was falsely implicated. No evidence was led in defence. 11. As stated earlier, the matter was reported by the complainant after five months, of the alleged payment of bribe. No recovery of amount was effected. Except that Jeeto Bai, complainant, had sworn in affidavit Ex. PF, stamp paper of which was purchased and was attested, no other evidence was led by prosecution to corroborate the testimony of Jeeto Bai. Jeeto Bai had admitted that her husband was involved in a case of working still before the registration of present case against the accused. The kind of bald allegation levelled by Jeeto Bai can be levelled against anybody. The Court is always put on guard while examining and appreciating this kind of evidence. This Court cannot loose sight of the fact that Jeeto Bai had also given bribe and for that purpose she was also an accused. Normally, in cases of payment of bribe, matter is reported before bribe is given. A raiding party is constituted and procedure has been prescribed, the number of currency notes and their denomination is noticed. Phenolphthalein powder is applied on those currency notes, shadow and independent witnesses are arranged and recovery is effected. It is easy to say that somebody had paid a bribe to a public official, but to prove and believe is another thing. Above said safeguards have been followed by Investigating Agency and Courts as rule of prudence. In the present case, except to believe or disbelieve the complainant, Court can not look upon any corroborative piece of evidence. Long delay of five months on part of complainant to report the matter, make it unsafe to rely upon complainant. Furthermore, in Court, PW.2 Jeeto Bai and PW.3 Gurdeep Singh absolved Jarnail Singh, co-accused of the appellant. In affidavit Ex. PF it was stated that Jarnail Singh accompanied the present appellant, but in Court, witness deposed that appellant came alone. Long delay of five months on part of complainant to report the matter, make it unsafe to rely upon complainant. Furthermore, in Court, PW.2 Jeeto Bai and PW.3 Gurdeep Singh absolved Jarnail Singh, co-accused of the appellant. In affidavit Ex. PF it was stated that Jarnail Singh accompanied the present appellant, but in Court, witness deposed that appellant came alone. This was not an innocent omission. Taking totality of circumstances, the testimony of PW.2 Jeeto Bai and PW.3 gurdeep Singh do not aspire confidence. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant benefit of doubt to the appellant and acquit him of the charges. Hence, the present appeal is accepted.