Criminal Appeal No 50 of 1976
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 2nd October 1975 of the Rajasthan High Court in SB Criminal Appeal No 850 of 1971
VB Raju and NN Sharma for the Appellant
Badri Das Sharma for the Respondent The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA J
This appeal by special leave seeks to assail the conviction of the appellant under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code as also section 51 d and section 52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947  Act  for short and a consolidated sentence of two years  rigorous imprisonment
Appellant s conviction by the Special Judge has been upheld in appeal by the Rajasthan High Court
Appellant at the relevant time was a Head Constable attached to the Bhusawar Police Station within the District of Bharatpur
Prosecution alleged that PW 2 Ram Swaroop had given first Information Report of two offences but appropriate investigation was not being furnished to the Court
He had approached Shanker Lal Head Constable attached to the Police Station and had on demand paid him some money by way of bribe to expedite submission of the charge sheet Shanker Lal got transferred and appellant came in his place
When contacted appellant also demanded money
2 thereupon informed the Anti Corruption Department about the demand and Kastoori Lal Dy
Superintendent of Police attached to the Anti Corruption Department at Jaipur agreed to lay a trap
Details were fixed up and the trap was laid on March 30 1969
An amount of Rs 50 was to be passed on as the bribe
Five currency notes each of Rs 10 denomination with marked initials were made over to PW 2 to be given as bribe to the accused
For that purpose 1139 Ram Swaroop PW 2 Kastoori Lal PW 6 Prabhu Dayal a literate Constable attached to the Anti Corruption Department PW 1 accompanied by two Panch witnesses Girdhari PW 3 and Gulji PW 4 came to Bhusawar
Ram Swaroop came to the bus stand adjacent to the Police Station
Banshi Kumar the waterman at the bus stand DW 1 was requested by PW 2 to inform the accused at the Police Station that he Ram Swaroop had come prepared for the purpose as arranged earlier and accused should came and contact him
Prosecution further alleged that the accused come pursuant to the request and the money was passed on and the payment of bribe was duly detected
In due course sanction was obtained and the case came up for trial before the Special Judge
Prosecution led evidence of 8 witnesses five as indicated above and PW 5 the Superintendent of Police Intelligence Jaipur PW 7 Kedar Nath a literate Constable attached to the Bhusawar Police Station and PW 8 the Superintendent of Police Bharatpur who proved sanction for the prosecution
Certain documents were also produced to support the charge
Defence examined four witnesses in support of its stand that the accused had not received any bribe and he was falsely implicated without any basis
The Special Judge accepted the prosecution case and convicted the appellant in the manner already indicated
His appeal to the High Court has failed
Ordinarily the Supreme Court does not enter into re appreciation of evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution see Ram Parkash Arora vs State of Punjab
It is also true that in the case of State of Bihar vs Basawan Singh a five Judge Bench of this Court has laid down that if any of the witnesses are accomplices their evidence is admissible in law but the Judge should indicate in his judgment that he had the rule of caution in mind namely the danger of convicting the accused on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice and give reasons for considering it unnecessary to require corroboration if however the witnesses are not accomplices but are merely partisan or interested witnesses who are concerned in the success of the trap their evidence must be tested in the same way as any other interested evidence is tested and in a proper case the Court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person
There are certain features in this case which appear to have been overlooked both by the trial Court as also the High Court
The 1140 two panch witnesses have not only turned hostile but have disclosed fact which support the defence version of the incident
PW 2 the decoy witness has stated facts which probabilise the defence stand
Even the literate Constable PW 7 who has not been declared hostile has supported the defence version
The place and the manner in which the bribe is said to have been offered and received make the prosecution story totally opposed to ordinary human conduct a feature which the two Courts have overlooked
We are of the opinion that this is a case where the evidence has to be looked into with a view to finding out whether the prosecution case can at all be accepted
The restriction on appreciation of evidence of an appeal by special leave is a self imposed one and is not a jurisdictional bar
While we reiterate that ordinarily this Court would refrain from reexamining the evidence in a case where serious injustice would be done if the evidence is not looked into it would not be proper for the Court to shun attention by following the self imposed restriction
Prosecution has examined 8 witnesses in all
PW 5 as already noted is the Superintendent of Police Intelligence at Jaipur who is not a material witness at all
Similarly PW8 being the Superintendent of Police of Bharatpur is connected with sanction for prosecution and is not material for any other purpose
This leaves six witnesses in the field
Of them PWs
1 and 6 are of the Anti Corruption Department PW 1 being a literate Constable attached to that establishment and PW 6 being the Dy
Superintendent of Police under whose active supervision the trap was laid
PW 2 is the decoy witness himself on whose report the trap was laid
3 and 4 are the Panch witnesses and PW 7 is a literate Constable attached to the Police Station
PW 2 is a supplier of water at the bus stand like DW 1
From his own evidence it appears that he has been involved in laying of traps
In his cross examination he has admitted before this occurrence I took the Dy
section P for arresting another employee Shankerlal
The statement A V in exhibit P 8 was given by me in the presence of the Deputy Sahib
 He seems to have made two other complaints before the police and those were found to be false and police had already decided to prosecute him under section 182 IPC
It is after that incident that present move had been taken
PW 2 has admitted in his cross examination Prior to this I took the Deputy Sahib to get Shankerlal caught but Shankerlal could not be caught and the Deputy said that you have harassed me for nothing
 It is the case of the prosecution that Shankerlal was the Head Constable 1141 attached to the police station and that PW 2 had negotiated with him
PW 3 who is a Panch witness has stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police had told him that Ram Swaroop was giving illegal gratification to Shankerlal
PW 3 was previously employed in the Police Department and had been discharged
According to him the name of the accused was never discussed and even at the time of payment it was Shankerlal who was supposed to receive the bribe
PW 3 has said that he is not a literate person and his statement and signature had been extracted from him under pressure
PW 4 the other Panch witness has similarly stated that he had been told that Shankerlal was to be bribed and he made no statement with reference to the accused
In view of this evidence it becomes doubtful whether the Panch witnesses had really anything to do with the offer of bribe to the present accused
Since PW 2 admitted the position that the Deputy Superintendent of Police had been taken previously in respect of a bribe to Shankerlal and the two Panch witnesses have referred to that incident it appears logical to infer that these two witnesses were really referring to the other incident
The defence version seems to be that the trap had been arranged with reference to Shankerlal
Ram Swaroop on reaching the bus stand requested DW 1 to ask Shankerlal to come but since Shankerlal was absent from the Police Station the accused who was the senior most of the lot then available within the police station came out
This part of the defence story has been supported by PW 7 Kedar Nath a Constable attached to the Police Station
He in his cross examination has stated Banshi Kumar said that Shankerlal Head Constable is being called at the stand
There I Babu Ram Constable and Khilli Ram accused were present
We said Khilli Ram you being the Head may go 
Accordingly he went
 To that effect is the evidence of DW
I the person whose services Ram Swaroop had admittedly taken to call the accused from the police station
He stated Shankerlal was sent for from the police station at 6 pm 2 years 20 days ago
Then one more person was with him
I went to the Police station Bhusawar
Shankerlal was not found there
The two constables and the accused present in the Court were there
On the advice of the police constables the accused accompanied me to the bus stand
 The evidence of PW 7 and DW 1 thus clearly support the position we have indicated above
It is quite probable therefore that PW 2 had negotiated with Shankerlal only and so far as the accused is concerned there was no negotiation and he had come out to the bus stand after being told by DW 1 in the manner and circumstances indicated by PW 7 and DW 1
If that be so 1142 implicating the accused for the offence of receiving bribe would be without any basis
PW 2 stated in his evidence that the appellant had demanded a sum of Rs 100
When this was pointed out to him in cross examination he stated that the accused demanded Rs 100 from him for taking out the application and this was settled between to be paid to the accused
This part of the story runs counter to the deposition of PW 6 who stated Ram Swaroop came to my office on 30369 and said that Shankerlal has been transferred and in his place Khilli Ram Head Constable has came and the latter has settled with me to accept bribe of Rs 50
 The discrepancy is indeed a material one in the facts of the case
The defence of the appellant has all throughout been that he never received any bribe
PW 1 in his evidence in chief has stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police demanded the bribe amount to be taken out and the accused stated that he had not received the amount
To the same effect is the evidence of PW 2
This evidence of PWs
1 and 2 makes it clear that the first reaction of the accused when accosted was a denial of receipt of any bribe
That has reiterated the same in his examination under section 342 Cr P C
According to the defence version of the matter there was really no passing of any money
PW 1 the Constable accompanying the Dy
Superintendent of Police according to the prosecution searched the person of the accused and found the five currency notes
There is no acceptable evidence that the Constable had given search of his person before he started searching the person of the accused
PW 6 the Dy
Superintendent of Police was at a distance
He had not seen the actual passing of the money
Once PWs
3 and 4 the Panch witnesses did not support the prosecution case the only evidence for the passing of the money has to rest is of PWs
1 and 2
Both of them were vitally interested in the fate of the prosecution and would therefore be disposed to support the prosecution case
We have already indicated that PW 2 was anxious to satisfy the police as he was about to face the prosecution under section 182 IPC for having made false allegation in two cases
The Deputy Superintendent of Police has stated that he had taken PW 2 to task for having brought him once to Bhusawar on the allegation that Shankerlal was to receive the bribe and that had failed
In these circumstances it is quite likely that these two witnesses would go out of their way to support the prosecution version
1143 If Shankerlal was the person with whom PW 2 had negotiated in the matter of taking of the bribe it would indeed be difficult to accept the position that the accused readily agreed to receive the amount when offered
The accused was according to the prosecution evidence in full uniform
He had been called up to the bus stand which is a public place
There is evidence to show that there were many people moving around and the area was crowded
There is also evidence that the place where PW 2 met the accused with the money was close to a hotel where people were standing
In such a surrounding a police man in uniform would ordinarily not accept a bribe
The police station was not far away and if the accused wanted actually to receive the bribe he would try to chose a better environment for it than the one where the bribe is said to have been given
Human compunction would not permit a man in the position of the accused to behave in the manner prosecution has pictured him to have
There is also evidence that the money had not really been received by the accused and PW 1 raised shouts that the bribe had been accepted before the amount was paid
PW 3 has narrated this part of the story thus
There the Deputy Sahib and we all stood at on place and Ram Swaroop PW 2 and Prabhu Dayal PW 1 went towards the police station
Both had some talks
Prabhu Dayal remained this side and Ram Swaroop went inside the police station
Ram Swaroop returned and looked here and there
In the meantime Prabhu Dayal constable shouted that the money has been found come on come on  PW 4 stated that he did not see anybody giving or taking illegal gratification
DW 1 has stated I told pointing toward Ram Swaroop and his companions that they are summoning
Thereupon the companion of Ram Swaroop refereeing to Prabhu Dayal shouted near the Imli  tree that caught caught 
He took out from the pocket of his pant notes like and putting them in his hand shouted caught caught 
 DW 3 the hotelier has stated I and the Inspector went together then the notes were in the hand of a Constable He has further said that the Constable was shouting that the amount had been recovered from Khilli Ram
DW 4 an independent witness 1144 described this part of the story thus At the same time Banshi waterman and Killi Ram accused present in the Court came from the side of Police Station
The man standing near Ram Swaroop obviously Prabhu Dayal shouted caught caught 
He took out the currency notes of Rs 50 from his witness  pocket and raised this alarm In cross examination this witness stated that the person who raised the cry said that the notes have been recovered from Khilli Ram but Khilli Ram was saying that he did not take the notes
Two other aspects are relevant to be indicated here
According to PW 1 Kastoori Lal the Deputy Superintendent of Police ordered him to take the search of the accused whereupon he proceeded to do the needful
PW 2 however stated that it was the Dy
Superintendent of Police who recovered the notes from the accused
PW 6 has however indicated that under his orders search was conducted by PW 1
There is again material discrepancy as to from where the amount was recovered
PW 2 has stated that the accused kept the notes of Rs 50 given by him in the left side pocket of his shirt
PW 6 has stated When Prabhu Dayal conducted the search of the accused Ext
P 1 2 3 4 and 5 notes of the denomination of Rs 10 each were found out from the right side pocket of the shirt of the accused Ext
P 1 is the recovery memo purported to have been prepared att he spot
It indicates Then the settled five currency notes of the denomination of Rs 10 each were recovered from the right hand pocket of the worn shirt of khaki uniform
 There is thus a discrepancy as to the place from where recovery was made
It was pointed out by this Court in Raghbir Singh vs State of Punjab Where a trap is laid for a public servant it is desirable that the marked currency notes which are used for the purpose of trap are treated with phenolphthalein powder so that the handling of such marked currency notes by the public servant can be detected by chemical process and the Court does not have to depend on oral evidence which is sometimes of dubious character for the purpose of deciding the fate of the public servant Ordinarily in cases of this type the powder treatment is made
There is no material at all on the record to explain why such a 1145 process was not followed in the instant case even though detection is alleged to have been handled by experienced people of the Anti Corruption Department
PW 6 was a very senior officer and in fact by the time the trial took place he had retired from service
It is difficult for us to accept the position that he was not aware of the powder treatment
It has been in vogue for well over three decades now
If such powder treatment had been made the passing of the bribe would indeed not have been difficult to be proved
We are prepared to agree with counsel to the State of Rajasthan that ordinarily a case of type is difficult to prove and the law is settled that even the uncorroborated testimony of trap witnesses can be acted upon as indicated by this Court in the case of Prakash Chand vs State Delhi Administration and Kishan Chand Mangal vs State of Rajasthan but in the present case the evidence of the panchas is not available to support the prosecution case
There is discrepancy in many material aspects
The prosecution story is opposed to ordinary human conduct
The discrepancies go to the root of the matter and if properly noticed would lead any court to discard the prosecution version
Without powder treatment for the absence of which no explanation has been advanced the prosecution story becomes liable to the rejected
An overall assessment of the matter indicates that the story advanced by the prosecution is not true and the defence version seems to be more probable
In these circumstances we are of the view that sufficient material has been brought out to merit interference in this appeal
We allow the appeal set aside the conviction of the appellant and acquit him
He is discharged form his bail bond
NVK Appeal allowed


Summary:
The prosecution alleged that PW 2 had given a First Information Report of two offences but appropriate investigation was not being done and charge sheet was not being furnished to the Court
When PW 2 contacted the Appellant the Head Constable of the Police Station he demanded money
2 thereupon informed the Anti Corruption Department about the demand and the Deputy Superintendent of Police agreed to lay a trap
Details were fixed and the trap was laid
An amount of Rs 50 was passed on as the bribe
Five currency notes each of Rs 10 denomination with marked initials were made over to PW 2 to be given as bribe to the accused
The prosecution further alleged that the accused came pursuant to the request and the money was passed on and the payment of bribe was duly detected
The Special Judge accepted the prosecution case convicted the Appellant under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code as also section 51d and section 52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and imposed a consolidated sentence of two years  rigorous imprisonment
The conviction and sentence were upheld in appeal by the High Court
Allowing the Appeal to this Court  HELD 1
The restriction on appreciation of evidence in an appeal by special leave is a self imposed one and is not a jurisdictional bar
Whileordnai 1137 rily this Court would refrain from re examining the evidence in a case where serious injustice would be done if the evidence is not looked into it would not be proper for the Court to shun attention by following the self imposed restriction
1140C Ram Prakash Arora vs State of Punjab 1972 Crl
L J 1293 and State of Bihar vs Basawan Singh   referred to
In the instant case certain important features have been overlooked both by the trial Court as also by the High Court
The two panch witnesses have not only turned hostile but have disclosed facts which support the defence version of the incident
PW 2 the decoy witness has stated facts which probabilise the defence stand
Even the literate Constable PW 7 who has not been declared hostile has supported the defence version
The Place and the manner in which the bribe is said to have been offered and received make the prosecution story totally opposed to ordinary human conduct
1139 H 1140 A B 2
Sufficient material has been brought out to merit interference
The evidence of the panchas is not available to support the prosecution case
There is discrepancy in many material aspects
The prosecution story is opposed to ordinary human conduct
The discrepancies go to the root of the matter and if properly noticed would lead any court to discard the prosecution version
Without powder treatment for the absence of which no explanation has been advanced the prosecution story becomes liable to be rejected
An overall assessment of the matter indicates that the story advanced by the prosecution is not true and the defence version seems to be more probable
The conviction of the appellant is therefore set aside and he is acquitted
He is discharged from his bail bond
1145 C E Prakash Chand vs State Delhi Administration  and Kishan Chand Mangal vs State of Rajasthan   referred to
The accused was according to the prosecution evidence in full uniform
He had been called up to the bus stand which is a public place
There is evidence to show that there were many people moving around and the area was crowded
There is also evidence that the place where PW 2 met the accused with the money was close to a hotel where people were standing
In such a surrounding a police man in uniform would ordinarily not accept a bribe
The police station was not far away and if the accused wanted actually to receive the bribe he would try to choose a better environment for it than the one where the bribe is said to have been given
Human compunction would not permit a man in the position of the accused to behave in the manner prosecution has pictured him to have
There is also evidence that the money had not really been received by the accused and PW I raised shouts that the bribe had been accepted before the amount was paid
PW 3 has also stated that he did not see anybody giving or taking illegal gratification
1143 B D 4
There is no material at all on the record to explain why the powder treatment process was not followed even though the detection is alleged to have been handled by experienced people of the Anti Corruption Department
It is difficult to accept the position that PW 6 was not aware of the powder treat 1138 ment
It has been in vogue for well over three decades
If such powder treat ment had been made the passing of the bribe would indeed not have been difficult to be proved
1145 A B Raghbir Singh vs State of Punjab  referred to