SUGAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment whereby the appellant has been convicted & sentenced as follows :

(2.) On July 24, 1978, one, Sitaram s/o Sukharam lodged a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACD, Sikar. It had been alleged therein that his brother (Banwarilal) was arrested on July 23, 1978 by Sugin Singh (appellant) ASI of Police Station Sadar (Sikar); on that date, Sugan Singh had sought three days' police remand; when he (Sitaram) alongwith Shiv Dayal (his brother-in law) had met Sugan Singh at the police station & requested him to release his brother Banwarilal (accused in a criminal case in which investigation was being conducted by the present appellant), the appellant demanded Rs. 150/-as bribe for the release of Banwarilal on bail from the court but Sitaram told that he was a poor man, so, was unable to bring the amount and thereupon Sugan Singh told that he was not taking any bribe but was doing his work, and then Sitaram & Shivdayal both came back. But, again, in the morning of 24th July, 1978, Sitaram all alone met Sugan Singh in court campus then Sugan Singh gave out that since no amount of Rs. 150/- was given so, the police remand so as to investigate further from his brother Banwarilal was sought; and that, if they would pay the amount, Banwarilal would be got released on bail from the court on the next date, otherwise further police remand would be sought. Aginst it, Sitaram told him that to pay Rs. 150/-was beyond his financial capacity and at the worst, he would be able to arrange only Rs. 50/- and then it would be given to him. But again, Sugan Singh persisting his demand, inclined to negotiate at Rs. 100/- and saying so, asked Sitaram to bring Rs. 100/- if arranged, so as to pay him at Kalyan Circle or in nearby market or police out-post thereat, in case he (Sitaram) was really anxious to get his brother released on bail, in the evening.

(3.) Accordingly, the complaint (Ex P.2) asserting the aforesaid facts, was made by Sitaram to the anti-corruption department,as stated above, suggesting laying of trap against the appellant. The statement of the complainant was recorded by the Dy. S.P. The complainant produced Rs. 100/- consisting of ten currency notes of Rs. 10/- each-number of which were noted & the anthracene powder was applied to them and the Dy. S.P. also put his initials on the currency notes. The trap party was then formed consisting of Murarilal (Pw2) & Anil Kumar (Pw6), Roop Singh (Pw8), Gyarislal (Pw10), Virendra Godika (Dy. S.P.), & Sitaram (Pw11). The decoy (complainant) was instructed to pay the amount to the appellant and the accompanying witnesses (Panchas) Pw2 & Pw6, were instructed to remain with the complainant and hear the conversation in between Sitaram & appellant before the money is passed on and thereafter, to give a signal by placing their hands on the head, to the trap party. The trap party and other police functionaries went to the spot and at 6.45 p.m. the members of the trap party after arriving at Kalyan Circle, took their reppective positions as instructed while preparing the memorandum and all of them were waiting the appellant. At 8.15 p.m. the appellant was seen coming from Kutcheri Road & then turning to Station Road, but upon seeing the decoy standing near Sikar Hotel, the appellant alighted from his by-cycle and started talking with the decoy, but the appellant carried on moving on foot alongwith the decoy towards court road (at that time, the trap party's members are said to have followed them), and stopped themselves in front of Milan Restaurant, Court Road, situated opposite Collectorate, Sikar, and by the side of foot-path they continued to their talks. As per the memorandum, then, and by that time, the decoy gave signal by placing his hands on the head, and upon receiving the signal the members of the trap party reached near the appellant. The Dy. S.P. then disclosed his identity to the appellant and the appellant was asked to put out the bribe money which frightened him and then the accused-apellant is denied to have received any bribe money. The decoy was asked about bribe money and he said that it was kept in the pocket of the accused of the left side after having accepted the amount. Upon laying such a trap, many people and passers by gathered there. The appellant is alleged to have admitted the fact of accepting bribe but after vehement protests. The requisite proceedings regarding phenophthelene test and recovery etc. were made on the spot. Further from the proceedings, it appears that the passers by gathered crowded at the spot after their notice that the appellant was dead drunk and completely sozzled, protested before the Dy. S.P. to arrange medical exmination of the accused which was conducted at 12.30 O'clock in the night, and he was found in a state of drunkenness as he had taken wine. The matter was then investigated by the police and after completion thereof, the case was put up for trial before the trial Judge.