The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against an order of acquittal. The petitioner challenged a Special Court finding that witnesses were uncredible and evidence insufficient to prove the accusation of a police officer demanding bribes, which the trial court did.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM A-165-MA of 2012 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM -A 165-MA of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 23, 2013
Kuldip Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another.
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
CRM No.13553 of 2012
For the reasons indicated in the Crl. Misc. application, the
same is allowed. Delay of 278 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
CRA S-165-MA of 2012
The instant application has been filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 16.02.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, Patiala, whereby respondent No.2 – Darshan Singh has been acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
CRM A-165-MA of 2012 (O&M)
2
Act, 1988.
Brief facts of the case as recorded in the impugned judgment
are as under:-
“Kuldeep Singh complainant is resident of Village Bakshiwala and running his business of commission agent at Grain Market, Sirhind Road, Patiala. On 22.04.1994, he was present at his shop and his mother Jit Kaur was also present at the shop. Teja Singh son of Bishan Singh resident of Ganeshpur Plot had also visited the said shop for the purpose of collecting the payment. At about 4 p.m., a Gypsy of police arrived near the shop. Darshan Singh accused who was posted as Inspector CIA Staff, Patiala along with his gunmen alighted from the Gypsy and entered the shop of the complainant. The accused pointed towards the complainant and verified his identity. The accused took the keys of the safe from the complainant and took out a sum of Rs.40,000/- and kept the same in the Gypsy. The complainant was also made to sit in the Gypsy and he was brought to CIA Staff, Patiala. The accused had told the complainant that he had administered some poisonous substance to Inder Singh and has committed his murder but complainant reacted that false allegations are being leveled against him. The accused told the complainant that if he wants to save himself from the murder case and he shall have to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. The complainant told the accused that he had already taken a sum of Rs.40,000/- from his shop. Thereafter, the accused represented that bricks worth Rs. 1 lac should be purchased by the complainant and dumped at his bungalow at Sular Road, Patiala and the complainant will be introduced with the brick kiln owner. On 24.4.1994, Teja singh visited the complainant at CIA Staff, Patiala, but on account of fear
CRM A-165-MA of 2012 (O&M) 3
nothing was disclosed to him. On 25.4.94, the accused introduced the complainant with brick kiln owner and the complainant was asked to pay amount in two installments. On the same day the brick kiln owner along with two police officials in plain clothes were sent along with the complainant who took the cheque book of Oriental Bank of Commerce from his shop and withdrew a sum of Rs.50,000/- vide cheque No. 338168. On coming out of the bank, the amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid to brick kiln owner and he was asked to send the bricks at the premises of the accused at Sular Road, Patiala. Thereafter on 27.4.94, the accused informed the complainant that he has received the bricks worth Rs.50,000/and further asked the complainant to pay another sum of Rs.50,000/- to brick kiln owner. On 27.4.94, the complainant was again taken along with policemen in plain clothes to his shop and the complainant withdrew another amount of Rs.50,000/- vide cheque No. 338171 from Oriental Bank of Commerce and handed over the same to brick kiln owner. On 28.4.94 Jit Kaur mother of the complainant visited CIA Staff, Patiala for the purpose of meeting him thereafter the accused sent the complainant alongwith his mother.”
The complainant had been making efforts to get the case registered but to no effect. Thereafter he preferred a Criminal Misc. No. 19387-M of 1996 titled as Kuldip Singh vs. State of Punjab and others in this Court and vide judgment dated 17.07.1997 directions was issued by this Court to register the case against the accused. Accordingly, the case was registered. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused – respondent No.2 was presented in the Court. Finding prima facie case against the accused under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of
CRM A-165-MA of 2012 (O&M)
4
Corruption Act, 1988, he was charge-sheeted to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 12 prosecution witnesses.
Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused. He denied the same and pleaded innocence.
The learned Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, acquitted the accused-respondent of the charge framed against him vide impugned judgment dated 16.02.2011. Hence, this application for grant of leave to appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned judgment.
The learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, observed as under:-
“24. The specific and categoric case of the prosecution is to the effect that bricks worth Rs. 1 lac were purchased for the accused from Hans Raj P.W.3 and payment was made by the complainant on 25.4.94 and 27.4.94. However, Hans Raj PW3 while appearing in the witness box has stated that on 30.4.94, 4000 bricks were sold for an amount of Rs.3200/- to Kuldeep Singh and subsequently 12000 more bricks were sold to him. He has specifically and categorically stated that 16000 bricks were sold to Kuldeep Singh on 30.4.94 and 1.5.94. The witness had also brought the bill book pertaining to the month of April, 94 maintained at the brick kiln. His deposition does not indicate that any bricks were sold by him on 25.4.94 and
CRM A-165-MA of 2012 (O&M)
5
27.4.94 to Kuldeep Singh. Furthermore, the bricks sold by him to Kuldeep Singh pertain to the period subsequent to 28.4.94 and his version does not indicate that bricks worth Rs. 1 lac were sold by him or the payment thereof was made by Kuldeep Singh P.W.1. He has further testified to the effect that in the y ear 1997-98 Kuldeep Singh approached him to issue the receipt for the purpose of one lac bricks from him. It may be mentioned here that the prosecution has not sought to declare the witness as hostile and impeach his credibility by putting questions in the form of cross-examination.
25. The report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been presented under the signatures of DSP Gursharan Singh Bedi P.W.12. The accused has sought to put forth a case to the effect that strictures were passed against him by the Hon'ble High Court and the copy of the order is Ex.D2. The accused has also placed on record copies of certain judgments which indicates that he was disbelieved by the courts. Furthermore, the accused sought to put forth a case to the effect that the complainant is a chronic litigant and has been involved in substantial civil and criminal cases. Even the father of the complainant had executed power of attorney copy whereof Ex.DW3/B which also indicates that the father of the complainant was also involved in substantial litigation at Jalandhar and Patiala. Consequently, the accused has sought to put forth a case to the effect that the complainant being a chronic litigant and statement of DSP Gursharan Singh Bedi P.W.12 being tainted police officer cannot be relied upon. 26. In this regard, it may be mentioned here that merely because DSP Gursharan Singh P.W.12 has been disbelieved in certain cases cannot be a ground to disbelieve his version in toto. It may be true that the complainant is involved in substantial litigation but it cannot be termed to be a sole
CRM A-165-MA of 2012 (O&M)
6
circumstance to disbelieve him in the present case. The material on record adduced during the course of evidence in the instant case with regard to allegations against the accused has to be looked into to settle the controversy.
27. Although Kuldeep Singh P.W.1 has testified with regard to the allegations against the accused but his deposition does not inspire confidence to conclude that he was abducted by the accused or a sum of Rs.40,000/- extracted on 22.4.94 or further the amount of Rs.50,000/- each was withdrawn by the complainant on 25.4.94 and 27.4.94 and was subsequently paid to Hans Raj P.W.3 for the purchase of bricks. The complainant himself visited Oriental Bank of Commerce on 26.4.94 and withdrew the amount of Rs.20,000/- by presenting a cheque which indicates the presence of the complainant in the bank premises on 26.4.94 which tends to falsify the version put forth by him to the effect that he was detained in CIA Patiala from 22.4.94 to 28.4.94. Furthermore, there is lack of satisfactory record to indicate that the bricks worth Rs. 1 lac were purchased for the accused and the payment was made by the complainant to Hans Raj P.W.3 and no receipt or record indicating the purchase of bricks on 25.4.94 or 27.4.94 has been produced or proved on record.
28. Last but not the least, it may be mentioned here that the version of the complainant is to the effect that the accused had threatened him to falsely implicate in the murder case pertaining to Inder Singh and accordingly the amount was extracted from him. Ex.PW8/A is the copy of the FIR bearing No. 60 of 2004 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala at the instance of Sohan Singh with regard to the murder of Inder Singh. The case was registered at police station Civil Lines, Patiala and the accused was not posted at the said police station during the relevant period. No material
CRM A-165-MA of 2012 (O&M)
7
has been produced to indicate that the said matter was pending with the accused or he was conducted with the investigation of that case. In these circumstances, it becomes hard to believe that the accused could have threatened the complainant or extracted the amount from him by threatening him to implicate in the murder case of Inder Singh.
29. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the allegations against the accused have to be established by the prosecution beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. In the event, an element of doubt creeps in the prosecution version, the accused becomes entitled to its benefit. The aforesaid reasonings go to show that there is lack of credible, reliable and clinching evidence, proving the allegations leveled against the accused. The prosecution case stands short of demanding degree of proof required to establish a criminal case. The case of prosecution cannot be termed to be free from reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to its benefit. As such it cannot be held that during the period from 22.4.94 to 28.4.94 in the area of Patiala, the accused being a public servant and while posted as Inspector CIA, Staff, Patiala had demanded and accepted one lac bricks amounting to Rs. 1 lac and sum of Rs. 40,000/- was taken out from the safe of the complainant from his commission agent shop Grain Market, Sirhind Road, Patiala, as illegal gratification by abusing his official capacity and on the threat that the complainant will be implicated in the murder case.”
Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in 'Allarakha
K.Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal)
748', held that where, in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused, has to be adopted by the Court. This view has been
CRM A-165-MA of 2012 (O&M) 8
reiterated in State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran, (2007) 3 SCC 755', and 'Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415'.
A Division Bench of this Court in 'State of Punjab v. Hansa Singh, 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 775', while dealing with
an appeal against acquittal, has opined as under:-
“We are of the opinion that the matter would have to be examined in the light of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1) SCC 166, which are that interference in an appeal against acquittal would be called for only if the judgment under appeal were perverse or based on a misreading of the evidence and merely because the appellate Court was inclined to take a different view, could not be a reason calling for interference .”
In 'Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura,
2011(9) SCC 479', decided on September 5, 2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:
“An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are “compelling and substantial reasons”, for doing so. If the order is “clearly unreasonable”, it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial
CRM A-165-MA of 2012 (O&M)
9
Court depending on the materials placed .”
Similarly, in the case of 'State of Rajasthan v. Shera
Ram alias Vishnu Dutta , (2012) 1 SCC 602', the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
“ 7. A judgment of acquittal has the obvious consequence of granting freedom to the accused. This Court has taken a consistent view that unless the judgment in appeal is contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous or a view which could not have been taken by the court of competent jurisdiction keeping in view the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, this Court shall be reluctant to interfere with such judgment of acquittal.
8. The penal laws in India are primarily based upon certain fundamental procedural values, which are right to fair trial and presumption of innocence. A person is presumed to be innocent till proven guilty and once held to be not guilty of a criminal charge, he enjoys the benefit of such presumption which could be interfered with only for valid and proper reasons. An appeal against acquittal has always been differentiated from a normal appeal against conviction. Wherever there is perversity of facts and/or law appearing in the judgment, the appellate court would be within its jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment of acquittal, but otherwise such interference is not called for .”
Thereafter, in the above case a large number of judgments were discussed and then it was opined as under:-
“ 10. There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal against conviction on the one hand and acquittal on the other. The preponderance of judicial
CRM A-165-MA of 2012 (O&M)
10
opinion of this Court is that there is no substantial difference between an appeal against conviction and an appeal against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted by the High Court is a reasonable one and the conclusion reached by it had its grounds well set out on the materials on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with. Thus, this fine distinction has to be kept in mind by the Court while exercising its appellate jurisdiction. The golden rule is that the Court is obliged and it will not abjure its duty to prevent miscarriage of justice, where interference is imperative and the ends of justice so require and it is essential to appease the judicial conscience.”
Learned State counsel has failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the
judgment under challenge.
As such, this application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
[Paramjeet Singh] Judge
April 23, 2013 vkd
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the judgment of acquittal against the accused in corruption charges amounts to an error of law or fact requiring interference on appeal.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the acquittal given the lack of compelling and substantial reasons or compelling circumstances.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of GujaratReferred¶52
Allarakha K.Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, 2002(1) RCR (Criminal) 748
State of Goa v. Sanjay ThakranReferred¶54
State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran, (2007) 3 SCC 755 · Who else cites this
Chandrappa v. State of KarnatakaReferred¶55
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 · Who else cites this
State of Punjab v. Hansa SinghReferred¶57
State of Punjab v. Hansa Singh, 2001(1) RCR (Criminal) 775
Ashok Kumar v. State of RajasthanReferred¶58
Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991(1) SCC 166 · Who else cites this
Mrinal Das & others v. The State of TripuraReferred¶60
Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011(9) SCC 479 · Who else cites this
State of Rajasthan v. Shera RamReferred¶66
State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, (2012) 1 SCC 602 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kuldip Singh
State of Punjab
Darshan Singh
Paramjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
