Case: Tej Bahadur Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

narration of the prosecution case as is given by the prosecution witnesses, to say the least, was foolproof inasmuch as none of the witnesses faulted (sic faltered) anywhere in his respective statement. On that basis, we could have dismissed the appeal, yet we do not. Rather the foolproof narration given by the prosecution witnesses has left us with the impression that the story put forward is lifeless and mechanical and does not stand scrutiny when tested on the preponderance of probabilities, having regard to human behaviour in the day-to-day happenings when moving on the road of life and on that analysis, some doubts have entered our mind which we express hereafter 7. Those were the days of Emergency declared in the country. The administrative air was changed and abnormal; so was peoples behaviour. Suspicion and caution permeated the attitude and functioning of the administrators and the administered. Bearing that in mind and in that backdrop the prosecution case need have been viewed by the High Court. Now the complainant had stated that at the time of the incident he was a member of the Ticket Checker Staff Union of the Northern Railway and had been its General Secretary as well. He admitted that during the Emergency all the railway unions were under police surveillance. On December 18, 1975 when the appellant is said to have first visited him at his house the complainant could not find his name or his correct designation. The fact that the complainant was accused at that time of being a member of the Jamat-e-Islami or Muslim Majlis may have put him to alarm but that by itself could not have put him to such a terror so as to complain against the unknown public servant in writing suggesting arranging of a trap. Steps taken in that regard i. e. putting a written complaint to the District Magistrate, having obtained an order for a trap, meeting Shri Srivastava, Deputy Superintendent of police as asked, having a statement recorded by the City Magistrate, having the numbers of currency notes worth Rs. 500 mentioned in the statement, having a memorandum prepared in that regard at the police station and finally entrenching the trap party in his house, are steps based not on probability but on a mechanical certainty that the appellant would in all events visit the house of the complainant on December 21, 1975 at 7.30 p. m. The complainant did not even for a moment entertain the doubt that the visitor of December 18, 1975 could well be a fraud or a fake extortionist. He did not let even the appellant repeat the visit a time or two before coming to the conclusion that he was being subjected to pressure for doling out a substantial sum as bribe. It could well be that the appellant might not have turned up. It was speculative at least. Rather the complainant straightway taking steps of arranging a trap in theses circumstances sets a doubt in our mind. This is one circumstance which sows such doubt 8. The second circumstance is that it is inconceivable that the appellant, who is himself a Vigilance Sub-Inspector, when scheduling his visit to the house of the complainant on December 21, 1975 would himself be non-vigilant about the surroundings in which he was walking into and placing himself. On the outer scene the parking of the jeep on the roadside, wherefrom emanates a street in which the house of the complainant is situated, would by itself make him suspicious as it would not have gone unnoticed to him. That jeep may or may not have had any distinctive mark of being a police jeep, as sought to be inferred from the evidence, but that is of no consequence. The parked jeep would have caused suspicion in the mind of the appellant at least to be cautious. Further according to the complainant, the time set for meeting was 7.30 p. m. The fact that the trap party came to the house of the complainant at 6.20 p. m., more than an hour before the appointed time, are particulars which do not by themselves inspire confidence having regard to normal human behaviour 9. The third circumstance of significance is about the happening of the incident in the house of the complainant itself. Now when the appellant had entered the house an hour earlier before his scheduled visit, it cannot be expected that the members of trap party which were said to be sitting in the adjoining back room had become instantly stone-still so as to conceal their presence form the appellant. The dimensions of those two rooms 8ft. x 8ft. and 8ft. x 12ft. separated merely by a window and a door on which curtains were hanging are suggestive of the fact that if the happenings in one room could be known to the inmates of the other, the converse would also be true. Relatively, if the members of the trap party could see and hear what was happening in the drawing room through the curtains, the inmates of the drawing room could also see the presence of others in the connecting room, huddled as they were in that small space. The appellant in these circumstances could not expected to throw caution to winds and either ignore or become indifferent of the presence of the inmates of the adjoining room especially when both rooms were lit by electric tubelight and there was just a curtain intervening. Additionally, in such a situation there awakens the sixth sense in every human being so as to detect the presence of another in such close surroundings. The appellant could not have been so foolhardy to accept bribe in circumstances which were obviously suspicious, and that to in the house of the complainant, running the risk of being entrapped10. The totality of the aforesaid circumstances thus makes us to come to the conclusion that it would not be safe to sustain the conviction of the appellant on the charges framed. 10.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]7. Those were the days of Emergency declared in the country. The administrative air was changed and abnormal; so was peoples behaviour. Suspicion and caution permeated the attitude and functioning of the administrators and the administered. Bearing that in mind and in that backdrop the prosecution case need have been viewed by the High Court. Now the complainant had stated that at the time of the incident he was a member of the Ticket Checker Staff Union of the Northern Railway and had been its General Secretary as well. He admitted that during the Emergency all the railway unions were under police surveillance. On December 18, 1975 when the appellant is said to have first visited him at his house the complainant could not find his name or his correct designation. The fact that the complainant was accused at that time of being a member of thei or Muslim Majlis may have put him to alarm but that by itself could not have put him to such a terror so as to complain against the unknown public servant in writing suggesting arranging of a trap. Steps taken in that regard i. e. putting a written complaint to the District Magistrate, having obtained an order for a trap, meeting Shri Srivastava, Deputy Superintendent of police as asked, having a statement recorded by the City Magistrate, having the numbers of currency notes worth Rs. 500 mentioned in the statement, having a memorandum prepared in that regard at the police station and finally entrenching the trap party in his house, are steps based not on probability but on a mechanical certainty that the appellant would in all events visit the house of the complainant on December 21, 1975 at 7.30 p. m. The complainant did not even for a moment entertain the doubt that the visitor of December 18, 1975 could well be a fraud or a fake extortionist. He did not let even the appellant repeat the visit a time or two before coming to the conclusion that he was being subjected to pressure for doling out a substantial sum as bribe. It could well be that the appellant might not have turned up. It was speculative at least. Rather the complainant straightway taking steps of arranging a trap in theses circumstances sets a doubt in our mind. This is one circumstance which sows such doubt8. The second circumstance is that it is inconceivable that the appellant, who is himself a Vigilance, when scheduling his visit to the house of the complainant on December 21, 1975 would himself bet about the surroundings in which he was walking into and placing himself. On the outer scene the parking of the jeep on the roadside, wherefrom emanates a street in which the house of the complainant is situated, would by itself make him suspicious as it would not have gone unnoticed to him. That jeep may or may not have had any distinctive mark of being a police jeep, as sought to be inferred from the evidence, but that is of no consequence. The parked jeep would have caused suspicion in the mind of the appellant at least to be cautious. Further according to the complainant, the time set for meeting was 7.30 p. m. The fact that the trap party came to the house of the complainant at 6.20 p. m., more than an hour before the appointed time, are particulars which do not by themselves inspire confidence having regard to normal human behaviour9. The third circumstance of significance is about the happening of the incident in the house of the complainant itself. Now when the appellant had entered the house an hour earlier before his scheduled visit, it cannot be expected that the members of trap party which were said to be sitting in the adjoining back room had become instantlyl so as to conceal their presence form the appellant. The dimensions of those two rooms 8ft. x 8ft. and 8ft. x 12ft. separated merely by a window and a door on which curtains were hanging are suggestive of the fact that if the happenings in one room could be known to the inmates of the other, the converse would also be true. Relatively, if the members of the trap party could see and hear what was happening in the drawing room through the curtains, the inmates of the drawing room could also see the presence of others in the connecting room, huddled as they were in that small space. The appellant in these circumstances could not expected to throw caution to winds and either ignore or become indifferent of the presence of the inmates of the adjoining room especially when both rooms were lit by electric tubelight and there was just a curtain intervening. Additionally, in such a situation there awakens the sixth sense in every human being so as to detect the presence of another in such close surroundings. The appellant could not have been so foolhardy to accept bribe in circumstances which were obviously suspicious, and that to in the house of the complainant, running the risk of being entrapped10. The totality of the aforesaid circumstances thus makes us to come to the conclusion that it would not be safe to sustain the conviction of the appellant on the charges framed.