Lajpat Rai vs The State of Punjab

Swatanter Kumar, J.—The appellant Lajpat Rai, who was working as a Patwari, in the revenue circle of Jhotiwala was convicted by the learned Special Judge, Faridkot, vide judgment dated 7.6.1990 as he was found guilty of the offence punishable u/s 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1989, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1.5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Challenge in the present appeal is to the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant-accused.

As per the case of the prosecution, Jit Singh PW 1 is resident of village Burj Masta. He and his other three brothers had purchased the land measuring about 15 kanals 18 marlas in 1982. They also purchased land measuring 4 kanals 17 marlas for a consideration of Rs. 14,000/- from Arjan Singh son of Narain Singh and Jaswinder Singh son of Jalaur Singh. The mutations had not been sanctioned in respect of the two purchases. The complainant went to the Patwari who in turn demanded a sum of Rs. 500/- but agreed to accent Rs. 300/- from them for entering the mutations. This was demanded on 10.4.1989. The amount was demanded as illegal gratification, which was promised to pay by the complainant. The complainant along with Babu Singh PW went to the office of the Vigilance Bureau at Faridkot, Gurbachan Singh, Inspector met him in the office. Statement of complainant was recorded. Then Jit Singh produced three currency notes of Rs. 100/- each. Phenolphthalein powder was applied to the notes and no other material was permitted to remain with Jit Singh. These notes were handed over to Jit Singh. A demonstration regarding the solution of powder was also done. A scheme was prepared, according to which after reaching near the vegetable shops, Jit Singh was to go ahead and on demand by the accused, was to make the requisite payment. According to the scheme Jit Singh PW1 paid a sum of Rs. 300/- to the accused and thereafter agreed signal was given by Babu Singh. The Inspector along with the members of the raiding party reached the roof. Accused came out from the Chaubara. The Inspector disclosed his identity. Then glass of water was taken and sodium carbonate was put into the same. Hands of the accused were got washed in the said solution. The colour of the solution changed to pink. Then solution was put into a nip and was duly sealed and taken into possession. Before conducting the raid, Gurcharan Singh, Clerk, Office of the S.D.O.Drainage, Faridkot was also joined. He was introduced to the witnesses and scheme was told to him. Recovery of three currency notes of Rs. 100/- each was effected. Numbers of the notes were tallied and ultimately challan was filed along with relevant documents. Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory and the opinion given by the expert were filed with the challan.

A charge u/s 13(2) of the Act was framed on 27.9.1989. The appellant-accused did not plead guilty and was subjected to trial. After the prosecution evidence was concluded, the statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he pleaded not guilty as well as stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. As already noticed, the learned Special Judge, found the appellant guilty of the offence and convicted him by awarding the afore-mentioned sentence.

Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has mainly thrust on two submissions, firstly that there are serious contradictions in the statements of the material witnesses and secondly that PW 1 is not a reliable witness inasmuch as he has, on oath, stated falsehood which is confirmed by the statement of PW 2 itself. Lastly, it was submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt.

PW 1 Jit Singh complainant was asked a simple question in his cross-examination whether he knew and addressed Babu Singh PW 2 as his Fuffar. This question was answered by him in the negative. However, PW 2 in his cross-examination stated as under:-

"It is correct that I and Kaka Singh were god brothers and Jit Singh PW addresses me as Fuffar. I started from the village at 8 A.M. I had come to purchase articles. I do not remember what I was to purchase on that day."

The above contradiction does show that PW 1 was not stating correct facts even on oath before the Court. There was no occasion for him to deny relationship which was known to all concerned. Another material contradiction between the statements of PW 1 and PW 2 is with regard to material part of the trap laid by the police party. According to PW 1, "Patwari" (the accused) came out of his office in order to make water and while leaving he promised that after making water he will make the entries regarding the mutations". When he came out of the office, the vigilance staff was present and the Inspector disclosed his identity but the accused kept on standing there. The powder was mixed into a glass of water and with the same the colour of the water did not change. On the other hand, PW2 in his examination in chief itself stated that the accused was caught in his office by the police inside the Chaubara. The Inspector told the accused that he had taken the money and that the accused kept silent. The Inspector took a glass of water and put the powder in the same and the colour of the water changed.

The version given by these two witnesses is at considerable variance in regard to one and the same event, which is the main plank of the prosecution case. Further more, Babu Singh PW 2 did not support the case of the prosecution any further and was permitted to be cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor on the same day. PW 3 Gurcharan Singh, who was the only independent witness, also did not support the case of the prosecution and has declared hostile and permitted to be cross-examination by the learned trial Judge. PW 3 stated that he did not see any signal and according to him also the accused was sitting in his office when the Inspector went to him. According to him Jit Singh pointed towards the pant which was lying inside his office and the money was taken out from the said pant.

Learned counsel appearing for the State contended that the hands of the accused were washed and that part of the prosecution case remains unrebutted and in fact is supported by three witnesses. But, this by itself, would not sufficient to convict the appellant. The prosecution is obliged to prove its complete story and particularly with regard to the event of trap laid for recovering the money from the appellant which was allegedly paid as bribe to him. However, it is correct that minor discrepancies or even contradictions per se would not be sufficient to throw out the case of the prosecution, but where the discrepancies or contradictions are serious and demolish the case of the prosecution itself, in that event, advantage must go to the accused.

For the reasons afore-stated, this appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned trial Court dated 7.6.1990 is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him.