HARI RUDRA BHAVAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by Hari Rudra Bhavan against the judgment of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases, Raj Jaipur dated July 30, 1975, by which the appellant was convicted under section 161, I. P. C. and Sec 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month on the first count and on the second to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. The substantive sentences of imprisonment on both the counts were, however, ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE incident that led to the prosecution of the appellant may be stated as follows : -

(3.) UPON re-examination, Raghunath Singh again changed his version given by him in bis cross-examination and stated that he saw the appellant extending his hand and thereafter putting his hand in the pocket of his coat and so he said that the appellant accepted the money in his hand and put it into his pocket in his presence. After a careful review of the entire evidence of Raghunath Singh, I cannot help observing that this witness had no respect for truth and changed his version time and again in the manner he liked. It appears from his evidence that he could not see the appellant accepting initialled currency-notes in his hand, because, according to his own admission the lower part of the body of the appellant was not visible from the place where he was standing and that only he could see the portion of the appellant's body above his chest. Hence, no reliance can be placed on the wavering testimony of Raghunath Singh, which is not at all free from reasonable doubt. Ram Gopal, PW. 7 is another witness examined by the prosecution to prove that the price-money was accepted by the appellant from Mangat Singh inside his room Ram Gopal did not support the prosecution case on this point. He categorically admitted that he could not see what was done by the old man, i. e. Mangat Singh after entering the room where the appellant was sitting on a chair. The relevant portion of his statement is as follows:- ********