9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Demand for Rs. 500 by the appellant. 2. Payment of Rs. 200 on 5-11-1947. 3. Payment of Rs. 300 on 27-11-1947 and conscious acceptance as a bribe. 4. Delay in submitting the report. 5. Conduct of the appellant as a public officer. 6. Admissibility and interpretation of the appellant's statements after being halted. 7. Validity of the sanction to prosecute. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Demand for Rs. 500 by the appellant: The prosecution alleged that the appellant demanded Rs. 500 from Radhakrishna on 27-10-1947. The trial court believed the prosecution story and convicted the appellant. However, the Additional Sessions Judge found glaring discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly Radhakrishna, and concluded that the demand for Rs. 500 was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court did not discuss these discrepancies and relied on certain circumstances without giving the appellant an opportunity to explain them. 2. Payment of Rs. 200 on 5-11-1947: The appellant denied receiving Rs. 200 from Radhakrishna on 5-11-1947. The Additional Sessions Judge found the evidence of Radhakrishna unreliable and noted that Brijraj Singh and Pratab Singh, who were present at the time of the alleged demand, were not examined to corroborate Radhakrishna's testimony. The High Court did not address these points and relied on the appellant's conduct and statements. 3. Payment of Rs. 300 on 27-11-1947 and conscious acceptance as a bribe: The trial court convicted the appellant based on the recovery of Rs. 300 from him. The Additional Sessions Judge pointed out discrepancies in the evidence regarding the payment and the method of handing over the money. The High Court relied on the appellant's conduct and statements made after being halted but did not discuss the discrepancies in the evidence. 4. Delay in submitting the report: The High Court considered the delay in submitting the report as an incriminating circumstance. However, the appellant explained that he was new to the range and needed time to familiarize himself with it. The alleged delay was not put to the appellant during his examination under Section 342, Criminal P.C., and he was not given an opportunity to explain it. The Supreme Court found that the delay could not be regarded as an incriminating circumstance. 5. Conduct of the appellant as a public officer: The High Court criticized the appellant for accepting an invitation to tea from the legal representatives of the party concerning whose forests he had been directed to hold an inquiry. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant had a friendly relationship with Durga Narain Singh, who was also a public officer, and found nothing wrong in accepting the invitation. The conduct of the appellant in agreeing to carry a letter from a brother officer after being entertained to tea was not necessarily suspicious. 6. Admissibility and interpretation of the appellant's statements after being halted: The High Court relied on the appellant's statements made after being halted, which were alleged to indicate a guilty mind. The Supreme Court found that these statements did not necessarily amount to a confession of the offense and could refer to the mistake of accepting the invitation to tea and carrying the letter. The statements were not admissible under Section 8 or Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and the prosecution's case was primarily based on these statements. 7. Validity of the sanction to prosecute: The Supreme Court did not find it necessary to discuss the validity of the sanction to prosecute the appellant, as the prosecution evidence was found to be unreliable and the conviction was set aside on other grounds. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the High Court, and ordered the appellant to be set at liberty. The prosecution evidence was found to be unreliable, and the benefit of doubt was extended to the appellant.
|
