Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 387 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Dev Raj

2012-07-13

DEV DARSHAN SUD

body2012
JUDGMENT : Dev Darshan Sud, J. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge, Solan acquitting the respondent for offences under Sections 7(13), 1(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that the accused had made a demand of illegal gratification of Rs.500/- for tagging each cow, which had been purchased by the villagers. 2. Adverting to the facts of the case, PW2 Sandhya Sharma, submitted a complaint Ext. PW2/A, dated 21.6.2010 to PW23 Inspector Vigilance Anil Dhaulta who was accompanied by AST Kamal Dev, HC Anil, HHC Madan Lai and Constable Madan at Darlaghat. It was stated therein that she is a permanent resident of village Badal. In the year 2003, the Panchayat of the area started a Self Help Group scheme of which she was the secretary. A person from the Block Development Office, (B.D.O.) Kunihar informed them about a scheme for obtaining loan for the produce of vegetables and to increase the output of milk etc. The lady members of the group applied for the benefit of the loan scheme. The formalities of signing the forms etc. were completed by an officer of the B.D.O. office. These forms were signed by the members desirous of obtaining loan for purchase of a cow. These forms were later on processed/checked by the Pardhan, Gram Panchayat and the Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Navgaon and deposited with the BDO office, Kunihar in February, 2010. The Manager, State Bank of Patiala, Navgaon telephoned her and informed her that the loan for purchase of cows has been sanctioned. A total amount of Rs. 3 lacs was sanctioned to the members, which according to her, was distributed between them equally. (hamara kul loan Rs. 3,00,000/- manjoor hua tha. Jo humane aapas mein baanta va gai kharidi.) (Translation: our total loan of Rs. 3 lacs was sanctioned which was distributed among themselves and bought the cows.) Thereafter, in the month of May, accused Dev Raj Sharma was called for conducting the medical examination of the cows which he did at the village of the loanees. The photographs of the cows were also taken for the purpose of insurance. On 21.6.2010 she went to the State Bank of Patiala and obtained tags from the branch bank at Navagaon. The photographs of the cows were also taken for the purpose of insurance. On 21.6.2010 she went to the State Bank of Patiala and obtained tags from the branch bank at Navagaon. (21.6.2010 ko main apne samuh dwara kharidi gai gauon to lagne vale loan vale tag bank branch Navagaon se lekar aai. Maine aaj din ko hi Dr. Devraj Sharma ji ko 94184-51558 par phone par bataya ki aap hamare samuh dwara loan par lee gauon ko tag lagaane ke liye hamare gaon aaye. Jis par Dr. Devraj ne kaha ki main tag tumari loan vaali gauon ko tag nahi lagaunga, jab tak aap va aapke samuh kee sabhi sadasay jinohne loan liya hai mujhe gauon ko tag laggane ke liye prati gai Rs. 500/- jo kul Rs. 5000/- rupaye batoaur rishwat nagad na denge. Main aur mere samuh kee mahilayen rishwat dekar loan par lee huai gauon ko tag nahi lagana chahti.) (Translation: On 21.6.2010 I went to the bank to obtain the tags to affix on the cows, which we had purchased on loan. Today itself, I called Dr. Dev Raj on telephone No. 94184-51558 that he should visit our village to affix the tags on the cows, on which Dr. Dev Raj replied that he would affix the tags on the cows which they have purchased by raising loan only when each member of the group who has bought the cow on loan will pay Rs. 500/- each in cash in all Rs. 5000/- as bribe. I and other lady members of the group do not want to pay any bribe.) 3. This is the gist of the offence alleged against the doctor on 21.6.2010. It is pursuant to this, the raiding party etc. has been formed and subsequent action taken. The core of the offence is the fact that a demand that had been made by the accused-respondent for tagging of the cows is an illegal gratification of Rs. 500/- per cow. The case of the appellant is one of the total denial. 4. PW2 Sandhya Devi states that respondent Dev Raj is a veterinary doctor posted in the hospital at Darlaghat. She is the Secretary of the Self Help Group, Badal which works for the welfare of the general public helping others in small agricultural, horticultural and diary produce etc. The case of the appellant is one of the total denial. 4. PW2 Sandhya Devi states that respondent Dev Raj is a veterinary doctor posted in the hospital at Darlaghat. She is the Secretary of the Self Help Group, Badal which works for the welfare of the general public helping others in small agricultural, horticultural and diary produce etc. The group was granted a loan by the State Bank of Patiala, Navgaon from the Block Development Office, Kunihar for the purchase of cows. This information was conveyed to her by the Block Development Office. Loan application forms Ext. PW1/A-4 and Ext. PW1/A-5 are signed by the members of the group who were the beneficiaries and they appended their thumb impressions etc. A loan of Rs. 3 lacs was sanctioned to the group and each beneficiary was sanctioned Rs. 30,000/- for the purchase of a cow each. The accused was a veterinary doctor who was contacted on mobile phone No. 94184-51558. She asked the doctor to conduct the medical examination which he did after some persuasion by the villagers on the next date about 5.30 PM in the evening when all cows were tagged by him and photographs were taken. He asked them to come to the hospital to get the medical certificates of those cows which were checked by him on that day. On the next day, she could not visit the accused as she was suffering from some problem. She therefore sent two villagers to meet the accused and asked him to hand over the medical certificates of the cows, but he did not hand over the medical certificates to them stating that there was some problem in the motor cycle on which he was travelling and reached only 9.30 PM and some of the photographs taken were not clear. He asked the villagers to come on the next date with some clear and distinct photographs of the cows. On that day, she sent two persons namely PW7 Badri and Babu Ram (he was not produced as a witness). She requested him on telephone that since she could not walk due to some problem in her foot, the medical certificates of the cows be sent with these two persons. The respondent-accused refused to hand over the medical certificates unless a sum of Rs. 500/- per cow was not paid by the members of the Self Help Group. She requested him on telephone that since she could not walk due to some problem in her foot, the medical certificates of the cows be sent with these two persons. The respondent-accused refused to hand over the medical certificates unless a sum of Rs. 500/- per cow was not paid by the members of the Self Help Group. She states that she was unwilling to pay this amount as beneficiaries were poor persons and the loan was still to be disbursed. The medical certificates were delivered after eight days to Babu Ram with a further direction to pay the amount of his "fee" failing which he would not affix the tags on the animals. When the loan was released to the beneficiaries, she went to the police and disclosed the demand of illegal gratification being made by the appellant. She proved on record Ext. PW2/A which was the complaint written by her. The other part of her statement, which relates to the conducting of raid etc. to which I will advert later. In cross examination, she says that she is educated upto matriculation. The complaint Ext. PW2/A, which is in her hand writing, was handed over to the Deputy Superintendent of Police was written at Darlaghat at around 2.15 PM in the evening. She says that she does not remember the date when the loan was sanctioned but the forms had been filled up in the month of January. The loan was disbursed to them on 16.6.2010. According to her, the loan was disbursed only after purchasing cows. A sum of Rs. 2 lacs had been disbursed as loan to the members of the society. She could not remember the date of the application. She says that their group meets quite often and the factum regarding the raising of loan as also the other activities are reduced into writing in the register meant for which purpose. She says that “the proceedings register of the group was not taken in possession by the police, though it was perused.” 5. She had purchased a cow on 24.5.2010. She states : “I did not incorporate in my written complaint Ext. She says that “the proceedings register of the group was not taken in possession by the police, though it was perused.” 5. She had purchased a cow on 24.5.2010. She states : “I did not incorporate in my written complaint Ext. PW2/A that when I deputed two persons for taking medical of the cows from the doctor then the doctor had demanded any money as a pre-condition to release the medical of the cows.” She could not remember the date on which the medical examination of the cows was conducted and then admits that it Was only on 26.5.2010 that the doctor had examined the cows. She does not remember whether the cows had been tagged on 16.6.2010 which fact was incorporated in the insurance policy. 6. PW3 Ram Saran says that he knows the accused as a doctor as he had seen him for the first time on 21.6.2010. On 21.6.2010 the accused-respondent had demanded a sum of Rs. 500/- from each member of the Self Help Group including his wife Kalawati to pass the cows as these had been purchased after sanctioning the loan by the bank. He says that this amount was demanded from PW2 Sandhya Devi. She apprised the members of the group about this fact. He says that she thereafter collected Rs. 500/- from each person and asked him to accompany her to the police so that further action could be initiated. When they went to the police station at Darlaghat they were asked to contact the vigilance officials who were in their vehicle nearby. In cross examination, he says that he started from his house on 21.6.2010 at around 10 AM. The money was collected by Sandhya and the loan was disbursed on the same day by the bank. The money was collected at around 1 PM. He then says that "the money was collected in the bank on 19.6.2010." He then continues that the tags were affixed on the cows when he saw them. He had not seen the tags before and saw them after about two months when he "came to the police". He says that he reached the police station between 1.30 to 1.45 PM and only Sandhya had a talk with the police and he remained outside the police station. He had not seen the tags before and saw them after about two months when he "came to the police". He says that he reached the police station between 1.30 to 1.45 PM and only Sandhya had a talk with the police and he remained outside the police station. The doctor did not demand any money in his presence, but then he says that his voice was audible when the demand was made. Adverting to the memorandum Ext. PW2/C/ which is the post trap memo, he identified his signatures encircled 'B'. He says that his signatures on this memo were taken at Navgaon. He then states “I cannot say where my signature over memorandum Ext. PW2/B was obtained.” This relates to the pre-trap memo. 7. PW4 Ram Piari states that the villagers had formed a Self Help Group of which Smt. Sandhya was the secretary and she was one of the members. She then continues about sanctioning and disbursement of loan etc. She says that the doctor visited the village for medical examination of cows. After such examination, no medical certificates were issued and an assurance had been given by the doctor to her father-in-law Badri Nath and one Babu Ram that such certificates in fact would be delivered. According to her, Smt. Sandhya told them that a demand of Rs. 500/- from each member of the society for each medical report was made so that tags could be affixed on the cows and when the loan was released in the bank, each member who had purchased the cows contributed Rs. 500/- and handed over this amount to Sandhya PW2. In cross examination, she states that the application on behalf of the group for medical examination of the cows had submitted to the doctor through Badri Nath PW7 and Babu Ram according to the collective decision. Each member of the group had been granted a loan of Rs. 30,000/- out of which they contributed Rs. 500/- and handed over the amount to Sandhya PW2. None of these group members had any personal contact with the doctor. The cows were examined by the accused on the next date on filing of application forms. She says that she is illiterate. She says that about 10 days prior to the medical examination of the cows they were informed about the demand. None of these group members had any personal contact with the doctor. The cows were examined by the accused on the next date on filing of application forms. She says that she is illiterate. She says that about 10 days prior to the medical examination of the cows they were informed about the demand. When they came to know about it, the entire group held a meeting to discuss the matter. She says that they (members of the group) went to the bank at around 12 noon and thereafter the loan was disbursed. They had been waiting in the bank since 9 AM in the morning. She says that she cannot remember the name of the doctor who had affixed the tags, again she says that he was another doctor. Babu Ram (who was not produced) was the nephew of Sandhya PW2. 8. PW5 Ram Dai states about purchasing of the cows and then says that cows were medically examined. No certificate was issued as no tags had been affixed by the doctor despite repeated requests made by Babu Ram and Badri, instead a demand of Rs. 500/- for each cow was disclosed to him by Sandhya PW2. In cross examination, he admits that Self Help Group had a meeting when the cows were purchased as also the loan was disbursed. He does not know when this loan was released, but the money of Rs. 30,000/- was counted by him in the bank which was given to him and out of this amount he had paid Rs. 500/- to Sandhya as contribution and some amount was taken as insurance which amount was deducted by the bank. No demand of money was made by the doctor from her. 9. PW6 Reeta Devi states that the cows were sought to be medically examined by the respondent-accused, who had visited the village. Badri Ram PW7 and Babu Ram were deputed by the group to collect the medical reports which were delivered after 8-10 days of the examination of the cows. Sandhya PW2 disclosed that a demand of Rs. 500/- for each cow was made by the accused to affix tags on the cows. When the loan was disbursed, each of the beneficiaries contributed Rs, 500/-. She is illiterate and then says that when she went to the bank only the borrowers were present. She did not see Ram Kali wife of Mast Ram. 500/- for each cow was made by the accused to affix tags on the cows. When the loan was disbursed, each of the beneficiaries contributed Rs, 500/-. She is illiterate and then says that when she went to the bank only the borrowers were present. She did not see Ram Kali wife of Mast Ram. 10. PW7 Badri Nath is an important witness. According to PW2 Sandhya he had been deputed alongwith Babu Ram to collect the medical certificates. He says that the accused-respondent had visited the village on 25.5.2010 and examined the cows of the Self Help Group. He says that he continued to visit him till 3.6.2010 after the medical examination of the cows for getting the medical certificates but the same were not handed over by the doctor who put off this on one pretext or the other. He says that “On 3.6.2010 the medical reports were given by the accused to Babu Ram. The doctor had called Smt. Sandhya for having a talk. The tags were not affixed over the cows by the accused and the doctor told that let Smt. Sandhya to come and thereafter the cows will be tagged. The tags were handed over by the Manager of the Bank to Smt. Sandhya and thereafter the tags were produced by Smt. Sandhya to police which were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW2/F.” He says that Sandhya PW2 is the wife of his younger brother (sister-in-law). He was never associated in any meeting of the Self Help Group. An application had been written by Sandhya to be handed over to the doctor/ accused-respondent on 23.5.2010, which was delivered to him on the same day. He then continues that he does not remember the date when the application was written as he is illiterate. The money was handed over to Balak Ram on the day when it was released by the bank. According to him, this amount was paid in the house of Balak Ram in his presence. He does not remember the date on which the cows were medically examined. He did not visit the veterinary hospital on 3.6.2010. He says that he did not know the number of tags which were taken into possession. He could state as to whether the tags were given by the Manager to Sandhya Devi. 11. He does not remember the date on which the cows were medically examined. He did not visit the veterinary hospital on 3.6.2010. He says that he did not know the number of tags which were taken into possession. He could state as to whether the tags were given by the Manager to Sandhya Devi. 11. Now, I will advert to the evidence of PW9 Shatinder Gupta, the Manager of State Bank of Patiala. He says that he remained posted as Bank Manager in the State Bank of Patiala, Navgaon from 21.6.2010 to 25.6.2010. He was on deputation on those days. On 24.6.2010 he handed over the insurance policies Ext. PW9/A-1 to Ext. PW9/A-10, the receipts of cattle purchased Ext. PW9/B-1 to Ext. PW9/B-10 and the photographs of the beneficiaries Ext. PW9/C to the police. The health certificates of the cows Ext. PW9/D-1 to Ext. PW9/D-10 were also taken into possession by the police vide seizure memo Ext. PW9/E. He says that the health certificates were issued by the doctor and tags were also affixed on the animals by the doctor himself, In cross examination, he says that applications for loan were sent by the Block Development Officer, Kunihar on 8.12.2009, on which the Branch Manager had sought approval on 21.12.2009 which approval was received in the bank on 8.1.2010 after sanction. There is no record about intimation sent to the members of the Self Help Group. He states that the assessment to the valuation of the cattle was prepared by the Branch Manager, whereas no such assessment record has been produced. He stated that- “no payment was made to the borrower as the payment was directly given to the seller. It is correct that the copy of receipt Ext. DX-1 does not bear the signature of borrower and the copy supplied today in the Court Ext. PW9/B-10 bears the signatures of borrower of Sandhya Devi. Voluntarily claimed that when I supplied copy of Ext. DX-1 during investigation there was no signatures of the borrower which were later on obtained on the original of Ext. PW9/B-10.I do not know who obtained the signatures of Sandhya over the original of Ext. PW9/B-10.” He then continues that he is not aware about the particulars of 'Doodh Ganga' Scheme. The bank has liaison with the United India Insurance for the insurance etc. PW9/B-10.I do not know who obtained the signatures of Sandhya over the original of Ext. PW9/B-10.” He then continues that he is not aware about the particulars of 'Doodh Ganga' Scheme. The bank has liaison with the United India Insurance for the insurance etc. He states: “It is correct that when we get live stock insured through company and our bank get the commission, for such insurance. It is correct that it is the duty of the bank to provide insurance cover to the live stock. I remained associated during the process of affixing tag to the live stock. It is correct that the tagging machine used to affix tag is the property of the insurance company.” He then states that machine though is the property of the insurance company but was handed over to the doctor. But there is no record to show that tagging machine was in fact handed over to the respondent-accused. He then continues : “It is correct that the insurance process of the cows in the present case was completed on 14.6.2010. As per insurance policy, Ext. PW9/A-1 to Ext. PW9/ A-10 the particular tag have been shown to be affixed on each cow at the time of insurance. It is correct that it is the responsibility of the Bank Manager to ensure that the insurance of the live stock had taken place and the tagging had been completed at the time of disbursement of the loan. I cannot say when the veterinary Health Certificates, Ext. PW9/ B-1 to Ext. PW9/B-10, were received in the bank.” 12. PW10 Hitesh Kumar is the agent of United India Insurance Company. According to him, he was informed by the Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala Navgaon that insurance of ten cows was to be obtained so he advised the Branch Manager to get the medical examination of the cows conducted, further to tag the cows and send the certificates. He states that there was no tag with the bank so he had ten tags issued from the Insurance Company to the Branch Manager. According to him, tagging is conducted by the veterinary doctor. He states that there was no tag with the bank so he had ten tags issued from the Insurance Company to the Branch Manager. According to him, tagging is conducted by the veterinary doctor. He says that he received the medical examination certificates by post from the Branch Manager but since there was no tag number mentioned or the value of each cow on 16.6.2010 and when he inquired about the value of the cows, the Branch Manager disclosed the value of cow Rs. 30,000/- as also the tag number of each of the cows. He admits insurance policies Ext. PW9/A-1 to Ext. PW9/A-10 issued by the Insurance Company. The policy was issued after confirming the tag numbers. In cross examination, he states that : “It is correct that the particular number to the tag number of each cows to the beneficiaries was mentioned in the information given by the manager disclosing that particular tags have been affixed to the particular cow and that information was given to the company by me, in pursuance of which the insurance policy was issued. It is correct that the tagging machine is with the insurance company. I do not know that official of the company conduct tagging of the animal. Our company did not write any letter to any doctor for medical examination and tagged of the animal. I do not know whether there is any memorandum of understanding between our company and the government about the scheme "Dodh Ganga”. This evidence has been considered in the backdrop of the case. As to whether the demand was made (a) for conducting the medical examination of the cows; (b) for affixing the tags. The evidence has to be considered in the light of complaint Ext. PW2/A which states that the demand was made for the first time on 21.6.2012 and money collected from the members of the group. This demand was made by the respondent-accused when PW2 Sandhya telephoned him for getting the cows tagged and according to the other evidence; the money was collected in the bank from each individual when the loan was disbursed. 13. As the case progresses, the entire point of time and purpose for which demand has been made have been changed. This demand was made by the respondent-accused when PW2 Sandhya telephoned him for getting the cows tagged and according to the other evidence; the money was collected in the bank from each individual when the loan was disbursed. 13. As the case progresses, the entire point of time and purpose for which demand has been made have been changed. Adverting first to the evidence of PW2 Sandhya, she is clear in her evidence that the medical certificates were not to be released till a sum of Rs. 500/- which was demanded from each member of the group was paid. She says that she was unable to comply with this request as loan was still to be disbursed. She then says that the medical certificates were handed over but the accused demanded the money for affixing the tags. She continues that when the loan was released to the beneficiaries, she went to the police and disclosed these facts. PW3 Ram Saran says that the amount was demanded "to pass the cows". The loan to the prospective loanees was disbursed on the same day i.e. 21.6.2010. The money according to him was collected in the bank on 19.6.2010. PW4 Ram Piari again says that the demand was made for medical examination of the cows. PW5 Ram Dai states that the medical certificates of the cows were not issued as the tags were not affixed by the doctor. PW6 Reeta Devi says that demand was made to affix the tags on the cows. The amount was collected in the bank. 14. PW7 Badri says that initially the demand was made for medical certificates, but later on the tags were not affixed on the cows by the accused. He had insisted that Sandhya herself should come over for this purpose. The evidence of PW9 Shatinder Gupta, Manager of the Bank and PW10 Hitesh Kumar is different from-the facts urged by the prosecution as the bank Manager states that no amount was paid to the borrower and payment was directly made to the seller. Secondly, the insurance process was completed on 14.4.2010 and policies Ext. PW9/A-1 to Ext. PW9/A-10 contained the company details. The insurance agent PW10 Hitesh Kumar states that policies were completed in all respects when they were issued. Now I advert to receipts Ext. PW9/B-1 to Ext. PW9/B-10. Secondly, the insurance process was completed on 14.4.2010 and policies Ext. PW9/A-1 to Ext. PW9/A-10 contained the company details. The insurance agent PW10 Hitesh Kumar states that policies were completed in all respects when they were issued. Now I advert to receipts Ext. PW9/B-1 to Ext. PW9/B-10. The amount was disbursed to each of the borrowers who have signed therein including the seller and at the bottom of certificate it is mentioned that the possession of the cows has been taken over. Exhibit Name of borrower Amount Date of possession taken Name of seller Ext.PW9/B-1 Ram Piari Rs.30,000/- 11.6.2010 Balak Ram Ext.PW9/B-2 Kalawati Rs.30,000/- 11.6.2010 Hira Lal Ext.PW9/B-3 Nirmala Rs.30,000/- 11.6.2010 Daya Nand Ext.PW9/B-4 Ram Dai Rs.30,000/- 11.6.2010 Roshan Lal Ext.PW9/B-5 Krishani Rs.30,000/- 11.6.2010 Nand Lal Ext.PW9/B-6 Promila Devi Rs.30,000/- 11.6.2010 Ram Kali Ext.PW9/B-7 Bimla Rs.30,000/- 11.6.2010 Puran Chand Ext.PW9/B-8 Phula Devi Rs.30,000/- 11.6.2010 Amar Chand Ext.PW9/B-9 Reeta Devi Rs.30,000/- 11.6.2010 Jai Ram Ext.PW9/B-10 Sandhya Rs.30,000/- 11.6.2010 Darshan Singh Each of receipts states that the borrower authorizes the Bank to make the payment to the seller. This part of the testimony that such amount was in fact paid directly to the seller and not to the borrower stands corroborated and proved from the evidence on record from the receipts (supra) and is totally contrary to the testimony of the witnesses who say that the amount had in fact been collected in the bank by all of them and then the bribe money Rs.500/- each was paid to PW2 Sandhya. Adverting to the insurance policies Ext. PW9/A-1 to Ext. PW9/A-10 it is pertinent to note the details which are as under : Exhibit Date of commencement of insurance policy Date of issuance of insurance policy Name of owner I.D. No. Ext.PW9/A-1 14.6.2010 16.6.2010 Sandhya Devi 05/01211 Ext.PW9/A-2 14.6.2010 16.6.2010 Krishani Devi 05/01397 Ext.PW9/A-3 14.6.2010 16.6.2010 Ram Dai 05/01352 Ext.PW9/A-4 14.6.2010 16.6.2010 Kalawati 05/01277 Ext.PW9/A-5 14.6.2010 16.6.2010 Ram Piari 05/01248 Ext.PW9/A-6 14.6.2010 16.6.2010 Namida Devi 05/01375 Ext.PW9/A-7 14.6.2010 16.6.2010 Reeta Devi 05/01213 Ext.PW9/A-8 14.6.2010 16.6.2010 Bimla Devi 05/01370 Ext.PW9/A-9 14.6.2010 16.6.2010 Phoola Devi 05/01290 Ext.PW9/A-10 14.6.2010 16.6.2010 Promila 05/01292 Reading of these insurance policies conclusively establishes that everything was completed on 14th June, 2010 on the day when all these policies were issued as I.D. (which in the present case is tag number issued and affixed on each of the cows) has been clearly recorded in each policy. I also advert to the medical certificates which have been issued by the doctor after describing the medical condition and description of the animal, there is clear note against tag number "tagging advised to be carried out by the insurance agent". These are the documents of the prosecution itself. Each certificate is dated 3.6.2010. 15. This evidence on record clearly indicates that on the day when the complaint was made by PW2 Sandhya Sharma, nothing remained to be completed since (a) loan has already been disbursed and cows purchased; (b) the medical examination of the animals was completed; (c) the tagging of the cows has already been completed; (d) insurance policy for each of the cows had been issued by the bank; (e) the money was disbursed directly to the seller and not to the loanees as is evidenced by receipts Ext. PW9/ B-1 to Ext. PW9/B-10. Each of the receipts reads: The Manager State Bank of Patiala NAVGAON. Agriculture Finance A/c Loan of Rs. for finance of cow, Buffalo/mule etc. Dear Sir, I hereby authorize you to make the payment of Rs. __________ to Sh.________ son of_________r/o___________P.O._______,Tehsil_______Distt._________from whom I have purchased cow/buffalo/mule etc. Sd/- (Borrower) Receipt Received a sum of Rs. _______from the State Bank of Patiala NAVGAON Distt. Solan branch on account of selling of cow/buffalo/mule to Sh.______________ Seller___________ Name___________ S/o________________ R/o______________ Certified that I have taken possession of the cow/buffalo/mule from Sh. ________son of ______r/o ___________Distt. ________to my entire satisfaction and the payment is made in my presence. Dt. 11.6.2010 Sd/-” (f) Each of the receipts is signed by the borrower as also the seller. What is noteworthy is that not a single naya paisa has been paid to the borrower but the entire amount has been paid to the seller by the bank. If this is the position, the evidence of prosecution witnesses that they had actually gone to the bank to collect the money so that the accused could be paid a particular sum of money as illegal gratification as demanded stands disproved on record; (g) In this situation, there was no occasion for the accused to make any demand of any money whatsoever and more especially on 21.6.2010 as before that date everything was over i.e. disbursement of the loan, purchase of the cows, medical certification, tagging and insurance. 16. 16. Adverting to the other evidence on record, that is the trap and recovery etc., the learned trial Court has dealt, with the evidence in detail. Adverting to the pre-trap memorandum, Ext. PW2/B, the learned trial Court adverts to the evidence of PW3 Ram Saran holding that the vigilance officials had taken water in two different glasses and two different chemicals were added to these glasses when the colour of the solution of one glass did not change, whereas the colour of the solution of other glass was changed to pink. He holds that this is contrary to the evidence of PW21 H.C. Anil Kumar who states that solution of sodium carbonate was prepared and the fingers of PW2 Sandhya Sharma were dipped in this solution, but the colour of solution did not change and currency notes were not treated and it is thereafter that these notes were treated with phenolphthalein and were given to Ram Saran PW3 and when he was asked to dip his fingers in the solution, the colour of the solution changed into pink. This fact is not supported by PW3 Ram Saran. PW2 Sandhaya Sharma stated in her evidence that the police demonstrated the entire process by taking water in two different glasses and adding two different chemicals in separate glasses, but colour of the solution remained the same. Thereafter the solution of both the chemicals was mixed, upon which the colour of the mixture changed. The learned Court holds that three different versions have come with respect to pre-trap demonstration namely one from PW2 Sandhya Sharma, the second from PW3 Ram Saran and the third from PW21 Anil Kumar, H.C. The mode of demonstration was vital to the entire case of the prosecution which does not stand established. Still continuing with the evidence, the learned Court holds that PW2 Sandhya Sharma states that she had currency notes of Rs. 500/- each which were changed by the Inspector Dhaulta by giving her currency notes of Rs. 1000/- each and then treating them with phenolphthalein powder. This fact is not corroborated either by PW3 Ram Saran who was a shadow witness or by PW21 H.C. Anil Kumar and PW23 Inspector Anil Dhaulta and thus the statement of PW2 Sandhya Sharma has been rendered unworthy of credence. 1000/- each and then treating them with phenolphthalein powder. This fact is not corroborated either by PW3 Ram Saran who was a shadow witness or by PW21 H.C. Anil Kumar and PW23 Inspector Anil Dhaulta and thus the statement of PW2 Sandhya Sharma has been rendered unworthy of credence. I concur with this reasoning and may add that after considering the other facts and evidence, I do not find any occasion for the respondent to have made a demand for money when everything was complete before the date when the purported demand was made. 17. Adverting to the evidence further, the learned Court also noticed the discrepancy in the manner in which the so called currency notes were offered as illegal gratification and the recovery. On careful scrutiny of the evidence, the learned Court holds that from the statement of PW2 Sandhya Sharma and PW3 Ram Saran, the only conclusion was that these currency notes were lying on the table, when they were allegedly recovered. The learned Court then again adverts to the statement of PW3 Ram Saran who states that hands of the accused were washed with plain water and the colour of the water changed to pink, whereas PW21 H.C. Anil Kumar claimed that after washing the hands of accused, the colour did not change, it was only when sodium carbonate was prepared and mixed with this water when the colour changed. I need not deal in great detail with those facts as I find that the prosecution case, if considered from any angle, has been unable to establish any illegal demand having been made by the respondent. In fact, the evidence on record establishes that on 21.6.2010 when the trap was prepared on a demand purportedly having been made by the accused, every act i.e. from the disbursement of loan to the purchase of cows, medical certification, tagging and insurance, was complete. 18. The principles on appreciation of evidence in Criminal law have now been established and do not call for further reiteration. In C. Magesh and Others etc. Vs. State of Karnataka, (2010) 5 SCC 645 the Court holds : “45. It may be mentioned herein that in criminal jurisprudence, evidence has to be evaluated on the touchstone of consistency. Needless to emphasise, consistency is the keyword for upholding the conviction of an accused. In C. Magesh and Others etc. Vs. State of Karnataka, (2010) 5 SCC 645 the Court holds : “45. It may be mentioned herein that in criminal jurisprudence, evidence has to be evaluated on the touchstone of consistency. Needless to emphasise, consistency is the keyword for upholding the conviction of an accused. In this regard it is to be noted that this Court in the case titled Suraj Singh v. State of U.P., (2008) 16 SCC 686 has held : “14. 21...The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy;.. the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation.' 46. In a criminal trial, evidence of the eyewitness requires a careful assessment and must be evaluated for its creditability. Since the fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence rests upon the stated principle that "no man is guilty until proven so". Hence utmost caution is required to be exercised in dealing with situations where there are multiple testimonies and equally large number of witnesses testifying before the Court. There must be a string that should join the evidence of all the witnesses and thereby satisfying the test of consistency in evidence amongst all the witnesses. (p.655) 19. I also refer to the decision in Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2010) 10 SCC 439 holding : “Standard of Proof: 10. A criminal trial is not a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and fantasy. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of an interplay between different human emotions. In arriving at a conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the Court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case, in the final analysis, would have to depend upon its own facts. The Court must bear in mind that "human nature is too willing, when faced with brutal crimes, to spin stories out of strong suspicions." Though an offence may be gruesome and revolt the human conscience, an accused can be convicted only on legal evidence and not on surmises and conjecture. The Court must bear in mind that "human nature is too willing, when faced with brutal crimes, to spin stories out of strong suspicions." Though an offence may be gruesome and revolt the human conscience, an accused can be convicted only on legal evidence and not on surmises and conjecture. The law does not permit the Court to punish the accused on the basis of a moral conviction or suspicion alone. "The burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always the burden of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence." In fact, it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence, the stricter the degree of proof required, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused. The fact that the offence was committed in a very cruel and revolting manner may in itself be a reason for scrutinizing the evidence more closely, lest the shocking nature of the crime induces an instinctive reaction against dispassionate judicial scrutiny of the facts and law. (Vide : Kashmira Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 159 . The State of Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh, Baljit Singh and Karam Singh, (1974) 3 SCC 277 ; Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1981) 2 SCC 35 ; Mousam Singha Roy and Others Vs. State of West Bengal, (2003) 12 SCC 377 ; and Aloke Nath Dutta and others v. State of W.B., (2007) 11 SCC 230). 11. In Sarwan Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637 this Court observed : 12... Considered as a whole the prosecution story may be true; but between 'may be true' and 'must be true' there is inevitably a long distance to travel and the whole of this distance must be covered by legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence [before an accused can be convicted]. 12. Thus, the law on the point may be summarised to the effect that in a criminal trial involving a serious offence of a brutal nature, the Court should be wary of the fact that it is human instinct to react adversely to the commission of the offence and make an effort to see that such an instinctive reaction does not prejudice the accused in any way. In a case where the offence alleged to have been committed is a serious one, the prosecution must provide greater assurance to the Court that its case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.” (pp-445-446) 20. The law clearly lays down the principles for evaluation of evidence. In Sanjiv Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2009) 16 SCC 487 the Court directs : “20. We cannot lose sight of the principle that while the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the defence of the accused has to be tested on the touchstone of probability. The burden of proof lies. on the prosecution in all criminal trials, though the onus may shift to the accused in given circumstances, and if so provided by law. Therefore, the evidence has to be appreciated to find out whether the defence set up by the appellant is probable and true.” (p-493) 21. The principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Aher Raja Khima Vs. The State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217 holding : “9. Now it may be possible to take two views of this statement but there are two important factors in every criminal trial that weight heavily in favour of an accused person: one is that the accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt and the other, an off-shoot of the same principle, that when an accused person offers a reasonable explanation of his conduct, then, even though he cannot prove his assertions they should ordinarily be accepted unless the circumstances indicate that they are false. What the appellant said in this case is not impossible; such things do happen and it is understandable that the police, frustrated in their endeavour to find the culprit among three other persons, should make an all cut endeavour to make sure of the fourth. We do not say that that happened here. What the appellant said in this case is not impossible; such things do happen and it is understandable that the police, frustrated in their endeavour to find the culprit among three other persons, should make an all cut endeavour to make sure of the fourth. We do not say that that happened here. But that it might have happened is obvious, and when the police absent themselves from the witness box and forestall attempts at cross-examination, we find it impossible to hold that a judge acting judicially, and bearing in mind the important principles that we have outlined above, can be said to have reached an unreasonable or an unfair conclusion when he deduces from these circumstances that there is a reasonable probability that the appellant's story is true and that therefore the confession was not voluntary.” (at p.221) In these circumstances, applying these principles to the facts of the present case, I do not find that the prosecution establishes its case against the respondent-accused. This appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged.