DALPAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two appellants were convicted by the High Court of Rajasthan under Ss. 120-B and 161, IPC, and under Ss. 5 (1) (a) and 5 (1) (d) read with S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. They have come up in appeal to this court by special leave.

(2.) The first appellant was a havaldar and the second appellant a Subedar in the Rajasthan Armed Constabulary. At the relevant point of time they were serving in the outpost at Sajan-ka-Par in Barmer district of Rajasthan State, which was a border outpost. That post was within two miles from the Pakistan border. The prosecution case is that the two appellants conspired to extort money as well as other valuable things from the villagers by using force or threat of force or by harassment. Though they were indulging in these activities for quite some time, the matter came to a head when they tried to compel PW 1 Mohammad to give them Rs. 100. It was said that about the middle of September 1962, the first appellant came to the field of Mohammad and took him to the outpost saying that the second appellant wanted him to go over there. At the outpost the second appellant told him that he was constantly visiting Pakistan; he was also black-marketing; hence unless he gave him (2nd appellant) Rs. 200/- he would send him to prison. PW 1 pleaded that he was innocent. He also pleaded that he was a poor man and hence he was unable to pay the amount demanded. As the second appellant insisted on the payment he agreed to pay him Rs. 100 but as he had no money at that time P W 3 Kalla stood surety for him. After a few days when PW 1 was sitting in the shop of PW 5 Bhoja, he happened to talk about the illegal activities of the appellants. It so happened that a CID officer was there who evidently passed on that information to PW 17 Kaneihalal the Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Special Police Establishment. On getting that information PW 17 came to the village on September 30, 1962 and checked up the facts with PW 1. On the morning of October 1, 1962 PW 1 was again called to the outpost by the 2nd appellant and told that the amount should be paid immediately. He promised to pay the same that afternoon and asked the appellants to come to his house that afternoon to which they agreed. Thereafter he passed on that information to PW 17 and gave him the complaint exh. P 1. Then a trap was arranged. PW 1 produced before PW 17, Rs. 100 in ten rupee currency notes. PW 17 noted down their numbers in the presence of panch witnesses PW 2 Bhakha and PW 4 Ballu and returned the amount to PW 1 with instructions to give the same to the appellants if they again demanded money. At the same time he instructed PWs 2 and 4 to be with PW 1 so that they may witness the payment of the money. Then PW 17 posted himself in a house near the house of PW 1. On the evening of that day the first appellant came to the house of PW 1 and demanded the money. He told PW 1 that the second appellant could not come as he was not well. Then PW 1 took out the currency notes whose numbers had been noted down earlier and paid the, same to the first appellant. The first appellant put them in his pocket. On receipt of that information, PW 17 came to the place and asked the first appellant to produce those currency notes. On seeing PW 17, the first appellant became pale and nervous. After some hesitation he took out the notes in question from his pocket and gave them to PW 17. On examining their numbers it was found that they were the very notes which had been returned to PW 1 after noting their numbers. As soon as the villagers came to know of the trap, several of them came forward with complaints against the appellants. After investigating all those complaints this case was launched. It was tried by the special Judge, Balotra, who accepted the prosecution case in full and convicted the appellants under Ss. 161 and 120-B, IPC and under S. 5(2) read with Ss. 5 (1) (a) and 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In appeal the High Court of Rajasthan affirmed the convictions of the appellants in respect of all the charges levelled against them. It did not award any separate sentence in respect of the offence under S. 161 or S. 120-B, IPC. As regards the other offences it reduced the sentence awarded by the trial court.

(3.) We shall now proceed to consider the evidence relating to the various charges levelled against the appellants. It is not disputed that both the appellants were public servants. So far as the evidence relating to the trap is concerned, we have the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 4 and 17. Their evidence has been believed by the trial court as well as the High Court. The plea of the 1st appellant was that on that evening when he was going in front of the house of PW 1, PWs 1 and 2 and others caught hold of him and struggled with him; at that time his note book fell down; thereafter he saw them producing the currency notes in question before PW 17. This is a very artificial story. The same has been disbelieved by the trial court as well as the appellate court. No case is made out to interfere with their findings.