Amarjeet Kaur vs State of Punjab

Sabina, J.—Appellant faced trial qua commission of offence punishable u/s 384 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (''IPC'' for short) and Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ''the Act'') in FIR No. 8b dated 6.7.2008 registered at Police Station Rampura. Prosecution story in brief, is that on 21.6.2008. Jagtar Singh submitted an affidavit before Station House Officer Police Station Rampura stations therein that he owned a Marriage Palace alongwith Gurtej Singh. On 11.05.2008. marriage of daughter of Mukhtiar Singh took place in his Marriage Palace. At about 7.00 p.m., Jaswinder Kaur, who had come to attend the wedding asked the complainant to arrange for a conveyance for her. At that time, Jaswinder Kaur sat in then office as they were busy in arranging the articles. At about 9.00/9.30 am., when they were about to arrange for a vehicle for Jaswinder Kaur then appellant came there in a Car bearing No. DL-4CF/1996 driven by Kala Ram. Appellant told the complainant and Gurtej Singh that they had kept a lady in the Marriage Palace with whom they were having illicit relations. Appellant gave beatings to Jaswinder Kaur. Appellant made Gurtej Singh to sit in her Indica Car, whereas, the complainant and Jaswinder Kaur were made to sit in Maruti Car belonging to complainant. Then, they reached Jaura bridge where the appellant asked the complainant as to whether they wanted to settle the matter or they should be taken to the Police Station. Out of fear, complainant told the appellant that they were reads to settle the matter. Appellant took them to the house of Kala Ram and raised a demand of Rs. 1.00.000/- from them. The deal was struck at Rs. 80.000/-. Complainant paid Rs. 4000/- to the appellant and promised to pay the remaining amount at a later date. On 12.5.2008, appellant rang up the complainant and demanded the remaining money from him. Complainant and Gurtej Singh gave Rs. 36,000/- to the appellant at about 8.30 p.m. in the house of Kala Ram. After some time, complainant received a phone call from the appellant that she had received the money and directed him to pay the remaining amount on the next day at 10.00 a.m. in the Gurdwara Sahib. As arranged complainant and Gurtej Singh paid Rs. 40,000/- to the appellant in the Gurdwara Sahib.

After completion of necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant.

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined ten witnesses.

After the close of prosecution evidence, appellant when examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, had prayed as under:--

I am innocent. I have been falsely involved in the aforesaid case by making totally false and baseless allegations. I never demanded or accepted any money or illegal gratification as alleged in the case. Inspector Mohinder Pal Ghai was not happy with me as I refused to him for his ingenuine work and also lodged a protest regarding his indecent gestures towards me for which he bore a grudge against me and he was instrumental in registration of the above noted case. He also caused prejudice in the mind of higher police officers and made them biased against me. The witnesses in the case are puppets in the hands of Inspector Mohinder Pal Ghai otherwise no such occurrence as alleged had taken place. I am innocent and I have been falsely involved in this case.

Appellant examined two witnesses in his defence.

The trial Court vide judgment/order dated 19.1.2010 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant u/s 384 IPC and Section 7 and 13(2) of the Act. Hence, the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there was an unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR. In the present case, appellant was not caught red handed while accepting bribe money. In these circumstances, the delay in lodging of the FIR was liable to be explained by the prosecution. In fact, appellant had been falsely involved in this case at the instance of PW5 Inspector Mohinder Kumar. PW10 Pradeep Yadav, Assistant Superintendent of Police had also not investigated the case as he had made the report on the same day when the matter was referred to him. Jaswinder Kaur had not been examined by PW5 and PW10 during investigation. She was the material witness in the case. Statement of Jaswinder Kaur was recorded much later by PW8 Rupinder Kumar Bhardwaj on 19.2.2009. Further Jaswinder Kaur had not supported the prosecution case. Appellant was working as a Constable and was attached with Police Station Rampura and was on duty with Police Line Bathinda. Thus, there was no occasion for the appellant to have approached the complainant in the area falling under Police Station Phul.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. Complainant had not immediately reported the matter to the Police to protect his reputation. However, the matter was duly investigated by the Police after it was reported by the complainant.

Prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of the affidavit submitted by the complainant-Jagtar Singh, Exhibit PA on 21.6.2008 alleging that a demand of bribe by the appellant was made on 11.5.2008. The entire bribe money, as per the complainant, was paid to the appellant upto 13.5.2008. However, the matter was reported to the Police on 21.6.2008. Thus, there is an unexplained delay in reporting of the matter to the Police by the complainant. In the present case, appellant has, thus, not been apprehended while accepting bribe but the matter was reported to the police after more than a month of the acceptance of the alleged bribe money by the appellant. Hence, the delay in reporting the matter to the police by the complainant gains significance. In the present case, the fact that the delay in reporting the matter to the police has remained unexplained is fatal to the prosecution case.

Appellant, as per DW1, was on duty with Police Line Bathinda from 6.5.2008 to 15.5.2008. So far as the Marriage Palace of the complainant is concerned, the same falls within the jurisdiction of Police Station Phul. The said fact is evident from the cross-examination of PW5 Inspector Mohinder Kumar. Since at the relevant time, appellant was not attached to Police Station Phul, it is doubtful that she could have demanded money from the complainant who was running a Marriage Palace outside her jurisdiction.

In the present case, complainant, while appearing in the witness box as PW1, and his partner Gurtej, while appearing in the witness box as PW3, and the driver of the appellant, Kala Ram, while appearing in the witness box as PW2, have deposed as per the prosecution case. However, Jaswinder Kaur, while appearing in the witness box as PW4, has not supported the prosecution case.

The whole case of the prosecution is that the demand of bribe was made by the appellant from the complainant and his partner on the ground that Jaswinder Kaur was sitting in their Cabin at night and the appellant had threatened the complainant and his partner that they would be taken to the Police Station as they were having illicit relations with Jaswinder Kaur. However, the said Jaswinder Kaur had not supported the prosecution case.

Further from the statement of PW5 Inspector Mohinder Kumar to whom complaint Exhibit PA was submitted by the complainant, it appears that the statement of Jaswinder Kaur had not been recorded nor he had tried to contact her, although, Jaswinder Kaur was the material witness in this case. The said witness also deposed that he had not visited the Marriage Palace or any other place to verify the allegations. Since the matter had been reported to PW5, after a gap of more than one month, it was necessary for the said witness to have inquired from the necessary witnesses and visit the spot.

Similarly PW 10 Pardeep Yadav, who had also verified qua the occurrence, has also not recorded the statement of Jaswinder Kaur nor had joined her in his investigation. So far as PW 10 is concerned, his investigation appears to be merely a paper work. The said fact is evident from Exhibit PF and Exhibit PG. The matter was referred to PW10 on 6.7.2008 and on the same day, PW10 reported that he has personally verified the facts and FIR was liable to be registered.

Statement of Jaswinder Kaur was recorded by PW8 Rupinder Kumar Bhardwaj on 19.2.2009 after a long delay.

Even the call details were not collected during investigation to confirm as to whether there had been any telephonic conversation between the complainant and the appellant as alleged in the Exhibit PA.

Thus, in the present case, the delay in reporting the matter to the Police as well as the manner in which the investigation of the case has been conducted renders the prosecution case doubtful.

It is a settled proposition of law that whenever there is doubt in the prosecution case, the benefit of the same has to be extended to the accused. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Hence, the appellant is liable to the acquitted of the charges framed against her by giving her benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment/order dated 19.1.2010 are set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against her by giving her benefit of doubt.