Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1721 (PNJ)

Karambir Singh v. State of Haryana

2013-12-19

SABINA

body2013
Judgment SABINA, J. Vide this judgment, above mentioned two appeals would be disposed of as the appellants have challenged their conviction and sentence as ordered by the Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 8.10.2004/12.10.2004 under Section 7 read with Section 13 (1)(d) and Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) in FIR No. 429 dated 18.4.2002, registered at Police Station City Palwal. Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Chander Pal required an arms licence. As per rules, he had to undergo Home Guard Weapons Usage Training which was being conducted by Home Guard, Palwal. Complainant had deposited Rs.50/-, the requisite charges, for the training programme on 8.4.2002. Since the complainant was having problem in attending the training programme, he talked to 3-4 Head Constables who were present in the office. Appellant Karambir Singh said that in case he (complainant) was ready to pay, then he could be granted the certificate. Demand to the tune of Rs. 800-1,000/-was made. Complainant approached the Vigilance office on 18.4.2002 and met Inder Singh Saini, Deputy Superintendent of Police ('DSP' for short). On the basis of the statement of the complainant, formal FIR was registered. Complainant produced one currency note in the denomination of Rs.500/-and three currency notes in the denomination of Rs.100/-each before the DSP, who in turn, returned the same to the complainant after application of phenolphthalein powder ('P-Powder' for short). Complainant was instructed to hand over the said currency notes to the accused on demand. Head Constable Raj Pal was instructed to act as a shadow witness and was directed to give a signal to the raiding party after the bribe money was accepted by accused Karambir on demand. Thereafter, the raiding party left for the raid. Complainant along with Head Constable Raj Pal entered the office of appellant Karambir Singh where appellant Khazan Singh was also present. When the complainant tried to give the tainted currency notes to appellant Karambir, he told the complainant to hand over the same to appellant Khazan Singh. Then complainant handed over the said currency notes to appellant Khazan Singh who counted the same. On receipt of signal from the shadow witness, DSP along with the remaining members of the raiding party reached the spot. Tainted currency notes were recovered from appellant Karambir Singh. Then complainant handed over the said currency notes to appellant Khazan Singh who counted the same. On receipt of signal from the shadow witness, DSP along with the remaining members of the raiding party reached the spot. Tainted currency notes were recovered from appellant Karambir Singh. When the fingers of both the appellants were dipped in separate solutions of sodium carbonate, the colour of the solutions turned pink. The said solutions were put in separate nips and were made into sealed parcels and were taken in possession. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant. Charge was framed against the appellants under Section 7/8 read with Section 13(i)(d) of the Act. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 10 witnesses during trial. Appellant Karambir Singh when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short), after the close of prosecution evidence, prayed as under:- “I am innocent. I was working as Incharge Training and the complainant had not completed the entire training programme including firing and therefore, he could not be awarded points or marks for issuance of participation certificate. He came to me and sought details of how could he get the certificate urgently for which I informed him that he shall have to participate in the complete training programme including final phase i.e. firing and only after that a Centre/Platoon Commandor would assess his performance marks and shall issue the certificate to him. I am neither competent to issue the certificate nor can fix fresh dates for firing programme which was the prerogative of Centre Commandor Shri Gulshan Batra. The complainant started pressuring me on which I told him to meet the Platoon Commandor for any clarifications on the mandatory instructions of the Home Guard Department, Haryana. Since I had refused to oblige him with the certificate which even otherwise I am not competent to issue, he has had involved me in a false case. I neither demanded nor received any gratification from the complainant.” Appellant Khazan Singh when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., after the close of prosecution evidence, prayed as under:- “I am innocent. I am working as a daily wager at FCI Palwal and was working in the FCI store at Jain Rice Mill, Kuslipur, Palwal. I neither demanded nor received any gratification from the complainant.” Appellant Khazan Singh when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., after the close of prosecution evidence, prayed as under:- “I am innocent. I am working as a daily wager at FCI Palwal and was working in the FCI store at Jain Rice Mill, Kuslipur, Palwal. Our salary is released from the Home Guard Office, Palwal and I had not received my wages for the past two months. On that day I had gone to the Home Guard Office to see the Incharge Shri Gulshan Batra but since he was not available in the office, I was waiting for his return and I was sitting in the office of my co-accused Karambir who is the Training Instructor. In the meantime, some police officials came there and forcibly took me and Karambir to the police station. I do not know the complainant nor never seen him before. I was falsely implicated only because I found sitting in the office/room of Karambir when the police forcibly took us away. I am not associated with the Home Guard Department nor I have any concern or connection either with my co-accused Karambir nor the work and the training of the Home Guard Department. Appellants examined one witness in their defence. Learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that there was no occasion for appellant Karambir to have demanded or accepted bribe from the complainant. In the present case prosecution had failed to establish demand of bribe by the appellants. In fact, the complainant had not completed the training and the certificate could not have been issued to the complainant without completion of training. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the cross-examination of the complainant as well as testimony of DW-1 Hari Singh. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the appeals and has submitted that appellants had been caught red handed while accepting bribe. In the present case, complainant while appearing in the witness box as PW-9 has deposed as per the prosecution story. Statement of the complainant is corroborated by PW-8 shadow witness Rajpal Singh. DSP Inder Singh Saini, while appearing in the witness box as PW-7 and Inder Singh official witness while appearing in the witness box as PW-10, have deposed qua recovery of the tainted currency notes from appellant Karambir. Statement of the complainant is corroborated by PW-8 shadow witness Rajpal Singh. DSP Inder Singh Saini, while appearing in the witness box as PW-7 and Inder Singh official witness while appearing in the witness box as PW-10, have deposed qua recovery of the tainted currency notes from appellant Karambir. They have also deposed that when the fingers of the appellants were dipped in the solutions of sodium carbonate, the colour of the solutions had turned pink. Although, in the present case the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case but the prosecution case is rendered doubtful in view of the cross-examination of the complainant. Complainant in his cross-examination admitted that he had not completed the course/training at Home Guard, Palwal. He also admitted that in case a person failed to complete the course including the firing programme, then the certificate of participation could not be issued by the Home guard authorities. He admitted that since he had not completed the course, he was not entitled to receive the certificate of rifle training from Home Guard, Palwal. He was willing to do anything to obtain the said certificate including pressurizing the officials. He had gone to the office and was told that as he had missed relevant dates for firing test, he could not be issued the certificate and shall have to re-apply and complete the course and thereafter could be issued the certificate. DW-1 Hari Singh deposed that it was mandatory for a person to complete firing process as the Rifle Training Programme was incomplete without the same. The certificate qua completion of course could not be issued to anyone in the absence of completion of firing process. The certificate had to be signed by the District Commandant and Platoon Commander. Thus, it is evident from the cross-examination of the complainant that he had missed relevant dates qua firing test. Complainant was aware of the fact that he could not be issued the certificate as he had not completed the course. He also admitted that he was required to re-apply and complete the course and only then he could be issued the certificate as he had missed the relevant dates for firing test. Complainant was aware of the fact that he could not be issued the certificate as he had not completed the course. He also admitted that he was required to re-apply and complete the course and only then he could be issued the certificate as he had missed the relevant dates for firing test. It appears that the complainant was desperate to get the certificate and it is probable that he has falsely involved the appellants in this case by levelling false allegations qua demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellants as appellant Karambir Singh was not helping him to get the certificate. Thus, in the present case, appellant Karambir had no occasion to demand bribe from the complainant as complainant had not completed the training and had missed certain firing tests. It is a settled proposition of law that whenever there is doubt in the prosecution story, the benefit of the same has to be extended to the accused. In the present case, prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment/order dated 8.10.2004/12.10.2004 of conviction and sentence of the appellants are set aside. Consequently, appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them by giving them benefit of doubt.