SHIVPRASAD KULDEEP Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During pendency of the instant appeal, the Appellant died. By order of this Court dated 5.12.2019, his above-named 4 legal representatives have been brought on record.

(2.) The appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 16.7.2003 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Durg in Special Case No.1 of 2000, whereby the Appellant (dead) was convicted and sentenced as under:

(3.) Prosecution case, in short, is that at the relevant time, the Appellant was posted as a Beat Guard in the forest situated at Village Naragaon. Complainant Ashok (PW3), a resident of the said village had demolished his old house and raised a new construction there. For raising the new construction, he had purchased some wood from a government depot and some wood was used by him available from his old demolished house. The Appellant/Beat Guard told Complainant Ashok (PW3) that the wood used by him for raising the new construction of his house was stolen by him from the forest. Allegedly, the Appellant demanded bribe of Rs.5,000 for not making a forest case against the Complainant. Ultimately, the Appellant consented to accept bribe of Rs.1,000. Since the Complainant did not want to give bribe to the Appellant, he submitted a written complaint (Ex.P2) in the office of Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Raipur. For confirmation of the demand of bribe, the Complainant was given a tape recorder and a blank cassette for recording his conversation with the Appellant regarding the demand. On 10.4.1999, the Complainant again met with the Appellant. At that time, the Appellant again demanded the bribe of Rs.1,000 from the Complainant. The Complainant recorded this conversation in the tape recorder. On 15.4.1999, the Complainant returned to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Raipur with the recorded conversation and there he again submitted a written complaint (Ex.P5). On the basis of the written complaint (Ex.P5) and the recorded conversation, First Information Report (Ex.P20) was registered. Panch witnesses R.P. Sao (PW6) and Rajendra Swarnakar (PW9) were called. They verified the contents of the complaint (Ex.P5) from the Complainant. A transcription (Ex.P4) of the recorded conversation was prepared. The Complainant produced 10 currency notes each in the denomination of Rs.100, total Rs.1,000 for the trap proceeding. Their numbers were noted and they were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. A demonstration of the trap proceeding was given to the Complainant and the panch witnesses. The Complainant was again given a tape recorder and a blank cassette for recording his conversation with the Appellant. A trap party proceeded towards the village of the Appellant. The Complainant alone was sent to the house of the Appellant where his office was also situated. The panch witnesses and other members of the trap party stayed nearby the house of the Appellant. In his house, the Appellant again demanded bribe money from the Complainant. The Complainant gave him the tainted money in his house. At that time, the Complainant forgot to switch on the tape recorder and, therefore, the conversation took place between him and the Appellant could not be recorded. After giving the tainted money to the Appellant, the Complainant came out of the house and gave a signal to the trap party on which the trap party entered the house of the Appellant. Hands of the Appellant were caught. His hands were washed in a solution of sodium carbonate on which colour of the solution turned into pink. The Appellant had kept the tainted money in the left pocket of his shirt. The tainted money was recovered from there. The shirt of the Appellant was also dipped into a solution of sodium carbonate on which colour of the solution turned into pink. The recovered currency notes were also dipped into a solution of sodium carbonate on which colour of the solution turned into pink. On completion of other formalities and investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant. The Trial Court framed charges against him.