IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.752 of 2008 Decided on: July 20, 2011 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Parkash Chand .. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondent : Mr. Anup Chitkara, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) State has appealed against the judgment, dated 11.8.2008, of Special Judge, Hamirpur, whereby respondent Parkash Chand, who was tried for offences, punishable, under Sections 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, has been acquitted. 2. Prosecution case, as per evidence led during trial, is that a daughter named Leela Devi of PW-2 Brij Lal, was married to one Mehar Singh. Another daughter of PW-2 Brij Lal, named Kamlesh Kumari, was married to Kehar Singh, a brother of the husband of earlier named daughter Leela Devi of said Brij Lal. Mehar Singh allegedly gave beatings to Leela Devi, on 8.8.2006. Leela Devi informed Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É her sister Kamlesh Kumari. Both the sisters then went to Police Station Nadaun in Hamirpur District and lodged report Ext. PW5/A. Leela Devi was sent to Community Health Centre, Nadaun, for medical examination, from where she was referred to District Hospital, Dharamshala. Instead of taking her to Dharamshala, complainant took her to Ludhiana, where better treatment was considered to be available. She remained under treatment for 2-3 months. 3. Respondent Parkash Chand, who was working as Head Constable at Police Station, Nadaun, was deputed to Ludhiana to record the statement of Leela Devi. When PW-2 Brij Lal was at Ludhiana, someone from Police Station, Nadaun telephoned to his third daughter, named Rekha, that Kamlesh Kumari and her husband Mehar Singh had lodged complaint against him and his family members. PW-2 Brij Lal then approached the respondent to get the matter compromised. Respondent allegedly demanded a sum of `10,000/-, as bribe. It was settled that a sum of `8000/- would be paid in two instalments of `4000/- each. 4. Three-four days after the aforesaid demand for bribe, PW-2 Brij Lal went to Vigilance Cell at Hamirpur and lodged FIR Ext. PW2/A against the respondent. Vigilance People asked PW-2 to produce currency notes of `4000/-. He produced one currency note of `1000/- and six currency notes of the denomination of `500/- each. Those currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and it was demonstrated to PW-2 Brij Lal and PW-3 Vipan Kumar, who É3É was accompanying him, how the solutions of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate, when mixed, turned pink. PW-3 Vipan Kumar was required by vigilance people to act as shadow witness. The signal that was fixed was that the shadow witness would touch his ear with one of his hands, after the acceptance of tainted money, by the respondent. Thereafter PW-2 Brij Lal and shadow witness PW-3 Vipan Kumar were required to proceed to Police Station, Nadaun, where respondent was posted as Head Constable. Vigilance people, accompanied by PW-1 Prabhat Chauhan, Tehsildar, waited outside the Police Station. PW-2 Brij Lal, per his testimony, spotted the respondent in the courtyard, near a well in the complex of Police Station, and handed over the tainted money there. Shadow witness PW-3 Vipan Kumar apprised the waiting vigilance people of acceptance of bribe money, by means of pre-fixed signal. Vigilance people, accompanied by PW-1 Prabhat Chauhan, Tehsildar, entered the Police Station and overpowered the respondent. Tainted money was recovered from him. He was made to wash his hands. To the hand-wash solution of sodium carbonate was added and the same turned pink. Tainted money was recovered from the respondent by Vigilance Inspector Mast Ram (PW12), in the presence of PW-1 Prabhat Chauhan, Tehsildar and PW-7 Ashish Sharma, Inspector/SHO, Police Station, Nadaun. 5. Respondent was arrested. Investigation was completed. Thereafter sanction to prosecute the É4É respondent was obtained from his Appointing Authority and report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was filed against him. 6. Prosecution examined the above named witnesses and some other formal witnesses, to prove its case. During the course of trial, respondent took the plea that PW-2 Brij Lal wanted him to bring Mehar Singh husband of Leela Devi, to Ludhiana, when he went to record the statement of Leela Devi. But he refused to oblige him. So PW2 Brij Lal turned hostile towards him. Respondent further took the plea that before that when he was at Ludhiana, PW- 2 Brij Lal had borrowed from him `4000/-, in connection with the treatment of his daughter Leela Devi and the amount, which was paid by PW-2 Brij Lal to him on the fateful day, was on account of return of the aforesaid borrowed amount of `4000/-. 7. Learned trial Court has held that defence version is probabilized by the evidence on record and acquitted the respondent. 8. I have heard learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the record. 9. View taken by the learned Trial Court that the defence plea is probabilized by the evidence on record cannot be said to be perverse. Not only this, trial Court’s view cannot be said to be not formable from the evidence É5É on record. Hence, interference in the judgment of acquittal is not called for. 10. Reasons for the aforesaid observation and finding are as follows. PW-2 Brij Lal, in his cross- examination, admitted that when at Ludhiana, he wanted the respondent, who had come to record the statement of Leela Devi from Police Station, Nadaun, that Leela Devi’s husband Mehar Singh be brought to Ludhiana and this demand of his was not met by the respondent. This admission to some extent probabilizes respondent’s plea, raised in defence. The witness though denied having borrowed any money from the respondent, contradictions in the statements of PW-2 Brij Lal and PW-3 Vipan Kumar as to the exact place in the Police Station, where the money was allegedly accepted by the respondents and a few more contradictions, suggest that the story of respondent having demanded bribe and having accepted the same, is doubtful and this fact lends corroboration the second part of the defence plea regarding borrowing of money. 11. As already noticed, PW-2 Brij Lal stated that tainted money was paid by him to the respondent in the courtyard of the police station near the well, but shadow witness PW-3 Vipan Kumar stated that money was paid inside a room of one side of the main gate of Police Station. Another contradiction is with regard to the signal which shadow witness was required to raise and did raise. According to PW2 Brij Lal, the signal was placing of hand on É6É the head by PW3 Vipan Kumar. Shadow witness PW3 Vipan Kumar himself says that he touched his left ear as signal. 12. Also, the story put forward by PW-2 Brij Lal and Shadow Witness PW-3 Vipan Kumar that the money was demanded for getting the matter reported against PW-2 Brij Lal and PW-3 Vipan Kumar, by Kamlesh Kumari and her husband Kehar Singh, does not inspire confidence. Nothing has come on record that any complaint or report had been lodged against PW-2 Brij Lal and PW-3 Vipan Kumar, by Kamlesh Kumari and her husband Kehar Singh. Also, in the FIR that was lodged with the Vigilance People, copy Ext. PW12/A, there is no reference that in the alleged complaint PW-3 Vipan Kumar was also named as accused. 13. For the foregoing reasons, judgment of the trial Court does not call for any interference. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. July 20, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.