ON Criminal Appeal No 193 of 1974
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 1 3 1974 of The Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No 11972
Frank Anthony N section Das Bahl and Shushil Kumar for the appellant
E C Agarwala and R M Sachthey for the Respondent
ii The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY J
The appellant before us was convicted by the learned Special Judge Delhi of an offence under Section 51 d read with Section 52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year on each count
He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 100 
The conviction and sentence were confirmed by the High Court and the appellant has come up in appeal by special leave
The prosecution case briefly was as follows PW 6 Ram Niwas Sharma an Architect by profession prepared building plans for one ML Batla and submitted them to the Delhi Development Authority for sanction
The plans were submitted on 6th May 1969
They were rejected on 26th May 1969
Revised plans were thereafter submitted on 16th June 1969
Certain objections were raised and in order to comply with those objections PW6 went to the office of the Delhi Development Authority on 11 7 1969
He met the accused who was overseer Section officer and asked him to be permitted to make necessary corrections in the building plans
Instead of giving the file to PW6 the accused demanded a sum of Rs 30 as bribe
PW6 told him that he did not have the money with him whereupon the accused asked him to come on 14th July 1969 in the afternoon with the money
On 1 4th July 1969
PW6 went to the AntiCorruption office at about 12 noon and 332 gave a report exhibit PW1A to PW9 an Inspector of the Anti Corruption Establishment
PW9 sent for PWs 1 and 2 from the Sales Tax office
The report made by PW6 was read over to them
Thereafter PW6 produced three ten rupee notes the numbers of which were noted by PW9 in the presence of the Panch witnesses PWs 1 and 2
Thereafter it was arranged that they should all proceed to the office of the Delhi Development Authority
There PW 5 was to give the bribe to the accused and on his giving the bribe to the accused PW l was to give a signal to PW 9
As arranged PW6 went to the office of the Delhi Development Authority alongwith Panch witnesses
The Inspector stopped at the door of the room
PW6 went to the table of the accused and asked him for the file for the purpose of making necessary corrections in the building plans
The accused asked him if he has brought the money
On his saying yes  the file was taken out and given to PW 6
As there were a number of other files on the table the accused PW 6 took the file to another table at a distance of one or two paces from the table of the accused
After making the corrections PW 6 handed over the file to the accused alongwith Its 30 
Instead of taking the money the accused asked PW 6 to place the money in the file which he accordingly did
The accused  then took the file and placed it under the table putting his foot on it
At that stage PW 1 gave the agreed signal
PW 9 came to the room disclosed his identity to the accused and questioned him whether he had accepted Rs 30 from PW 6
The accused was stunned and kept mum
PW 9 was then informed by PW 6 and the two panch witness that the money was kept in the file under the foot of the accused
PW 9 then took out the file and found the sum of Rs 30 in the file
The numbers of the currency notes were compared with the numbers earlier noted at the Anti Corruption office
Thereafter r w g sent the raid report
On receipt of it PW 7 Deputy Superintendent of Police took over the investigation
After completing the investigation a charge sheet was laid and the accused was duly tried convicted and sentenced as aforesaid
The defence of the accused was that PW 6 met him on 11th July 1969 and
wanted to make some corrections
He told him that he should file the original sale deed
PW 6 then said that he should come on Monday with the original sale deed
On 14th July 1969 PW 6 came to his office and wanted the file for making the necessary
corrections
He took out the file and gave it to PW 6
PW 6 took the file to another table and brought it back to him after Or 3 minutes
According to the accused PW 6 must have put the money into the file when he had taken the file to the other table
When the Police officer came in and questioned him about the receipt of the 333 bribe his straight away told him that he had not taken any money from PW 6
According to the accused PW 6 was annoyed with him on 11th July 1969 as he thought that he accused was delaying his work
He also stated that Mr Batla the owner of the plot had threatened him with dire consequences because he had raised objections to the plans submitted by him
Both the Panch witnesses examined by the prosecution did not fully support the prosecution case
They resiled from the earlier statement made by them during the course of investigation
PW 1 stated that when PW 6 went into the room where the accused was working there was some talk between PW 6 and the accused but he did not hear what it was
He saw the accused taking out the file from the Almirah and giving it to PW 6
PW 6 took it to another table and was writing something in the file
Then he took back the file to the accused
The accused was busy with his own work
The complainant placed three ten Rupee notes in the file and handed over the file to the accused who placed it under the table near his feet
PW6 signalled to him and he gave the agreed signal
The Inspector then entered the room and questioned the accused about the receipt of the bribe
The accused denied the charge
He PW1 then informed the Inspector that the money was in the file
The money was recovered from the file
The prosecution was permitted to cross examine him
In cross examination his earlier statements to the Investigating officer were put to him
He admitted in cross examination that when questioned by the Inspector the accused kept silent for some time as he was perplexed but thereafter told the Inspector that he had not taken any money
The evidence of the other witness PW 2 was on the same lines as PW 1 except that he stated that when questioned by the Inspector the accused kept mum and was perplexed
PW 2 was also cross examined by the prosecution and the statements made by him to the Investigating officer were put to him
Shri Frank Anthony learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction was based on the uncorroborated testimony of PW 6 and that it should therefore be quashed
He urged that Batla Advocate who had employed PW6 as an Architect had been convicted in a Criminal case and that the present complaint was inspired by Batla who had previously threatened the accused with direct consequences
He pointed out that PWs 1 and 2 stated in their evidence that Batla was actually present in the Anti Corruption office when they were called there by the Inspector
He invited our attention to the circumstance that some persons were standing near the table of the accused at the time when the bribe was supposed to have been given 334 and argued that it was most unlikely that the accused would have demanded and accepted the bribe when so many people were nearby the learned Counsel further urged that the evidence of PW6 that he went to the office of the DDA at 3 or 315 pm
On 11th July 1969 could not be true as the noting on the file showed that the file was received at 445 pm
It was also contended that the lower Courts had erred in law in relying upon the statements made by PWs 1 and 2 to the Police
It was argued that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 rendered the evidence of PW6 entirely unacceptable
It was further contended that the lower Courts were wrong in treating the conduct of the accused when questioned by the Police officer as a circumstance against him
We are unable to agree with the submission of Shri Anthony that no conviction can ever be based on the uncorroborated testimony of a person in the position of PW6 who for the sake of felicity may be described as a trap witness 
That a trap witness may perhaps be considered as a person interested in the success of the trap may entitle a Court to view his evidence as that of an interested witness
Where the circumstances justify it a Court may refuse to act upon the uncorroborated testimony of a trap witness
On the other hand a Court may well be justified in acting upon the uncorroborated testimony of a trap witness if the Court is satisfied from the facts and circumstances of the case that the witness is a witness of truth
Shri Anthony referred us to the decisions of this Court in Ram Prakash Arora vs The State of Punjab1 and Darshan Lal vs The Delhi Administration3 In the first case Grover J observed as follows It must be remembered that both Joginder Singh and Dalbir Singh PWs were interested and partisan witnesses
They were concerned in the success of the trap and their evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness and in a proper case the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person
All that Grover J said was that in an appropriate case corroboration may be sought and not that corroboration should invariably be sought In the particular case it was found that the witnesses could not be implicitly relied upon and therefore corroboration was necessary
In the second case a string of circumstances was noticed which made it necessary that evidence of the witnesses who had laid the trap should not be acted upon without independent corroboration
This 1 AIR 1973 SC 498
2 AIR 1974 SC 218
335 decision also does not lay down that the uncorroborated testimony of a trap witness can never be acted upon
That the law did not require any such corroboration was laid down in The State of Bihar
vs Basawan Singh1 and Bhanuprasad Hariprasad Dave and Anr vs The State of Gujrat 2
In Bhanuprasad s case it was observed by Hegde J as follows at p 1326 Now coming back to the contention that the appellants could not have been convicted solely on the basis of the evidence of Ramanlal and the police witnesses we are of opinion that it is an untenable contention
The utmost that can be said against Ramanlal the Dy
SP Erulker and Santramji is that they are partisan witnesses as they were interested in the success of the trap laid by them
It cannot be said and it was not said that they were accomplices
Therefore the law does not require that their evidence should be corroborated before being accepted as sufficient to found a conviction
We have carefully gone through the evidence of PW 6
After perusing the evidence of PW 6 we are left with the impression that PW 6 is a truthful witness an impression which we share with the High Court the final Court of fact
He has given evidence in a straight forward manner and was unshaken in cross examination
We are unable to discover any reason to discredit his testimony
The suggestion which was made to him was that he was aggrieved with the accused as he thought that he was unnecessarily raising objections That he had a hot altercation with him and that he went to the Anti Corruption office with the help of Shri Batla
The suggestions are without substance
PWs 1 and 2 no doubt stated that Shri Batla was present in the Anti Corruption office when they were called there by PW 9 the Inspector
We do not have the slightest doubt that PWs 1 and 2 are not truthful witnesses and that they have given evidence in order to accommodate the accused
Their evidence on important particulars was contradicted by their earlier statements to the Police
Here we may refer to the grievance of Shri Anthony that the Trial Judge and the High Court treated the statements made by PWs 1 and 2 to the Police as substantive evidence
There is no justification for the grievance
The witnesses who were treated as hostile by the Prosecution were confronted with their earlier statements to the Police and their evidence was rejected as it was contradicated by their earlier statements
Such use of the statements 1  2  336 is premissible under section 155 of the Evidence Act and the proviso to section 1621 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with section 145 Evidence Act
Corroboration to the evidence of PW 6 if considered necessary may be found in the following circumstances First his evidence is corroborated by the report Exh
PW 1A which he gave to PW 9 that day
Second his evidence is corroborated by the conduct of the accused when he was questioned by PW 9
PW 6 stated that when PW 9 entered the room and questioned the accused whether he had accepted Rs 30 from him the accused was stunned and did not reply
PW 9 also stated that the accused kept mum when challenged
PW 2 stated that the accused did not reply and kept mum but added that the accused was perplexed
Though PW 1 first stated in his chief examination that the accused when questioned denied having received any bribe later he reluctantly admitted ill cross examination that the accused kept silent for some time as he was perplexed and then denied that he had received any bribe
The immediate reaction of the accused on being questioned by PW 9 is a circumstance which corroborates the testimony of PW 6
another a circumstance which corroborates the testimony of PW 6 is that the accused was ready with the file and handed it over to PW 6 as soon as he asked for it indicating thereby that the statement of PW 6 that the accused had asked him to come on the afternoon of 14th July 1969 was true
Yet another important circumstance which corroborates the evidence of PW 6 is that after PW 6 handed over the file to the accused he kept it under the table
It was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the evidence relating to the conduct of the accused when challenged by the Inspector was inadmissible as it was hit by Section 167 Criminal Procedure Code
He relied on a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in D V Narasimhan vs State1 We do not agree with the submissions of Shri Anthony
There is a clear distinction between The conduct of a person against whom an offence is alleged which is admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act if such conduct is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact and the statement made to a Police officer in the course of an investigating which is hit by Section 162 Criminal Procedure Code
What is excluded by Section 162 Criminal Procedure Code is the statement made to a Police officer in the course of investigation and not the evidence relating to the conduct of an accused person not amounting to a statement when confronted or questioned by a Police officer during 1 AIR 1969 AP 271
337 the course of an investigation
For example the evidence of the circumstance simpliciter that an accused person led a Police officer and pointed out the place where stolen articles or weapons which might have been used in the commission of the offence were found hidden would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act irrespective of whether any statement by the accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls within the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Himachal Pradesh Administration vs Om Prakash1
The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on which Shri Anthony placed reliance does not support his contention where the learned Judges were not prepared to go into the question whether the evidence relating to the conduct of the accused was admissible as that question did not directly arise for consideration
On the other hand in Zwinglee Ariel vs State of Madhya Pradesh2 this Court appeared to be inclined to hold that evidence to the effect that the accused started trembling and showed signs of being frightened on being questioned by the Police officer if proved was admissible and in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and Anr
vs State of Vindhya Pradesh3 and State of Madras vs A Vaidyanatha Iyer4 this Court actually relied on evidence relating to the conduct on the accused on being confronted by the Police officer with the allegation that he had received a bribe
In Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh case the evidence relating to conduct on which reliance was placed was to the effect that the accused was confused and could furnish no explanation when questioned by the Police officer
In Vaidyanatha Iyer s case also evidence to the effect that the accused was seen trembling and that he silently produced the notes from the folds of his dhoti was acted upon
We therefore do not see any reason to rule out the evidence relating to the conduct of the accused which lends circumstantial assurance to the testimony of PW 6
On a consideration of the entire evidence we arc satisfied that the appellant was rightly convicted
The other points mentioned by Shri Anthony are of a minor character and do not warrant any interference under Article 136 of the Constitution
The appeal is accordingly dismissed
MR Appeal dismissed
1  2 AIR 1954 SC 15


Summary:
Prakash Chand an overseer Section officer in the Delhi Development Authority office was charged under section 51d read with 8
52 of the Prevention of Corruptions Act and section 161 IPC for demanding and accepting Rs 30 bribe from the trap witness Ram Niwas Sharma
an architect for permitting him to make some necessary corrections in the building plans submitted by him to comply with certain objections raised by the DDA On a report by Shri Sharma an Inspector of Anti Corruption Establishment accompanied him to the DDA office with two panch witnesses and on receiving a pre arranged signal entered the room and challenged the accused who was stunned and kept mum
Then three pre marked ten rupees notes were found in the file dealing with Sharma s matter the file was found under the table and the accused had his foot on it
The panch witnesses did not fully support the prosecution csse
They resiled from their earlier statements made in the course of investigation were treated as hostile by the prosecution and were disbelieved by the Court
The accused was duly tried convicted and sentenced and the conviction was upheld by the High Court
It was contended that the uncorroborated testimony of a trap witness was not sufficient to found the conviction and also that the evidence relating to the conduct of the accused when challanged by the police inspector was excluded by
section and was inadmissible in evidence
Dismissing the appeal the Court  HELD 1 We are unable to agree that no conviction can ever be based on the uncorroborated testimony of a trap witness
Where the circumtance justify it a court may refuse to act upon the uncorroborated testimony of a trap witness
On the other hand a court may well be justified in acting upon the uncorroborated testimony of a trap witness if the court is satisfied from the facts and circumstances of the case that the trap witness is a witness of truth
334C E The State of Bihar vs Basawan Singh   and Bhanuprasad Hariprasad Dave  Anr
vs The State of Gujarat   applied
Ram Prakash Arora vs The State of Punjab AIR 1973 SC 498 and Darshan Lal vs The Delhi Administration AIR 1974 SC 218 differentiated
The conduct of a person against whom an offence is alleged is admissible under s8 of the Evidence Act
What is excluded by s162 Cr
PC is the 331 Statement made to a police officer in the course of investigation and not the evidence relating to the conduct of an accused person not amounting to a statement when confronted or questioned by a police officer during she course of an investigation
336G H 337A D V Narasimluan vs State AIR 1969 AP 271 held inapplicable
Himachal Pradesh Administration vs Om Prakash  and Zwinglee Ariel vs State of MP AIR 1954 SC 15 reaffirmed
Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh  Anr
vs State of Vindhya Pradesh  and State of Madras vA Vaidyanatha Iyer   applied