HARI SINGH YADAV Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hari Singh Yadav (the appellant) impugns a judgment dated 17.05.2004 of learned Special Judge, Delhi in RC No. 38 (A)/98, CC No. 125/2001 by which he was convicted under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of PC Act. By an order dated 18.05.2004, he was awarded rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine Rs. 5,000/- under Section 7 and rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine Rs. 5,000/- under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The substantive sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) In brief, the prosecution case is that on 13.07.1998, Gurcharan Singh lodged a written complaint with CBI alleging demand of bribe of Rs. 5,000/- by Hari Singh Yadav, Sub Inspector, PS Mehrauli from his sister Harbans Kaur for not implicating her and her husband in a false case. It was further alleged that due to failure to pay the bribe, Harbans Kaur and her husband were implicated in a case under Sections 107/150 Cr.P.C. for which a notice was delivered to appear before SDM on 14.07.1998. When the complainant and his sister contacted the accused on 13.07.1998 in his office, he repeated the demand of Rs. 5,000/- which on request was reduced to Rs. 15,00/- to be paid in the evening. Since the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe, he lodged the complaint with CBI. Further case of the prosecution is that the investigation was assigned to Insp. A.K.Singh who organised a trap team and arranged two independent witnesses Bajrang Bali and Devender. The complainant was introduced to both the independent witnesses as well as to the trap team members. The complainant produced a sum of Rs. 1,500/- in the form of 15 GC notes in the denomination of Rs. 100/- each. After noting down the numbers of GC notes in the handing over memo, the notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and a practical demonstration was given to all trap members. The powder treated notes were kept in the left side shirt pocket of the complainant with the direction to hand over the same to the accused on his specific demand of bribe and not otherwise. Devender was directed to act as shadow witness and to remain as close as possible to see the transaction of bribe money and to overhear the conversation between the complainant and the accused. He was further directed to give a signal by scratching his head with both hands after the transaction was over. After completing and recording pre-trap proceedings, the trap team left CBI office at 04.10 P.M. and reached at police station Mehtrauli at about 05.15 P.M. Further case of the prosecution is that the complainant and shadow witness Devender were directed to proceed inside the police station. Other team members were directed to take suitable position in the nearby area. Trap Laying Officer (TLO) and independent witness Bajrang Bali took suitable position. Complainant and Devender met the accused inside the police station and had formal conversation. Thereafter, the accused at the request of the complainant and shadow witness showed them the police station. They all came out of it and went to Verma Bakeries situated opposite to the police station. While moving outside the police station, the accused had a conversation regarding demand of bribe with the complainant. It was further alleged that all of them took cold drinks at the bakery shop. While moving out of the shop, the accused demanded the bribe amount from the complainant by opening the mouth of the right side pocket with the help of his right hand fingers and directed him to put the bribe amount inside the pocket and the complainant did that accordingly. As soon as the transaction was over, the shadow witness gave a pre-appointed signal and on receiving it, the trap team rushed towards the accused and apprehended him at the stairs of the shop. When confronted, the accused admitted having demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs. 1,500/- from the complainant. Bajrang Bali recovered the tainted amount of Rs. 1,500/- from the right side pant pocket of the accused. Thereafter, hand wash, pocket wash, etc. were conducted and post-raid proceedings were completed. During investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused; he was duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined nine witnesses. In 313 statement, the accused pleaded false implication and examined eight defence witnesses. After hearing the rival contentions of the parties and on appreciation of the entire evidence, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, held the appellant perpetrator of the crime mentioned previously. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has preferred the appeal.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Appellant's counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell into grave error in relying upon the testimonies of the interested witnesses without independent corroboration. PW-Bajrang Bali and PW- Devender did not support the prosecution on material aspects and resiled from their previous statements. The appellant had never demanded any bribe from the complainant or his sister any time and it was never accepted voluntarily by him. The investigation is highly faulty and tainted and no proper verification was made to ascertain the antecedents of the complainant and his sister who were involved in number of criminal cases. The recovery of the tainted money is suspect. No independent public witness was associated at any stage of the investigation. Learned Standing Counsel for CBI while supporting the judgment urged that the complainant had no ulterior motive to lodge complaint with CBI. There was a specific demand of Rs. 1,500/- which was paid and accepted by the appellant and he was caught red handed. Evidence and the test carried out go a long way to show that the tainted amount was recovered from the possession of the appellant accused. The recovery part has gone totally unchallenged. Presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act is attracted and the appellant has failed to dislodge it. Minor discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses do not affect the core of the prosecution case i.e. demand and acceptance of money. Reliance was placed on "Narendra Champaklal Trivedi vs. State of Gujarat", 2012 7 SCC 80, "Rajesh Bhatnagar vs. State of Uttarakhand", 2012 7 SCC 91, "Subbu Singh vs. State", 2009 6 SCC 462, "Surendra Singh Beniwal vs. Hukam Singh and ors.", 2009 6 SCC 469 & "Narayana vs. State of Karnataka", 2010 14 SCC 453.