9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the investigation conducted by Head Constable Ram Singh. 2. Credibility of the prosecution's evidence. 3. Probable defense of the appellant regarding the permit. 4. Inherent improbability of the prosecution's bribery story. Summary: 1. Legitimacy of the investigation conducted by Head Constable Ram Singh: The Supreme Court noted a significant procedural irregularity in the investigation. Head Constable Ram Singh, who was the complainant in the bribery case, also conducted the investigation. The Court found it difficult to understand how the complainant could also be the investigator, highlighting that this dual role undermines the credibility of the prosecution case. 2. Credibility of the prosecution's evidence: The prosecution's case relied solely on the testimony of Head Constable Ram Singh and four other police constables, with no independent witnesses to corroborate the offer of bribe. The Court pointed out that the seizure memo for the currency notes did not include any independent respectable witnesses, which could have been easily arranged. The absence of such witnesses and the lack of detailed circumstances in the seizure memo cast doubt on the prosecution's version of events. 3. Probable defense of the appellant regarding the permit: The appellant claimed to have a valid permit dated 28th October 1966 for transporting gram, which he allegedly showed to Head Constable Ram Singh at the time of interception. The Court found this defense plausible, noting that the permit was only one day expired and the appellant might have believed it was still valid. The prosecution's claim that the permit was produced two days later was not supported by any Panchnama or memo, making the appellant's version more credible. 4. Inherent improbability of the prosecution's bribery story: The Court found the prosecution's story of the appellant offering a bribe of Rs. 510 inherently improbable. It questioned why the appellant would offer the entire bundle of currency notes after an initial refusal by Head Constable Ram Singh to accept a smaller bribe. The Court deemed this sequence of events unnatural and unlikely, leading to hesitation in accepting the prosecution's narrative. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the trial Court and the High Court failed to consider several important circumstances that cast doubt on the prosecution's case. The evidence did not exclude reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's guilt. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of the offence u/s 165A of the Indian Penal Code.
|
