2018 (10) TMI 310 - SC - Indian Laws

Conviction of the appellant u/s 13(1)(C) r.w.. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 409 and 477-A IPC - sentence of imprisonment - conviction based on a voluntarily confession of accused - Contention of the appellant is that PWs 2 and 3 being the higher officials, it cannot be said that the confession statement of the accused has been made voluntarily and it must have been under the inducement or under false promise of favour- Held that - It is well settled that conviction can be based on a voluntarily confession but the rule of prudence requires that wherever possible it should be corroborated by independent evidence. Extra-judicial confession of accused need not in all cases be corroborated. Law does not require that the evidence of an extra-judicial confession should in all cases be corroborated. The rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. If the court is satisfied that if the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of Prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession with regard to the participation of the accused must be separately and independently corroborated Mere allegation of threat or inducement is not enough; in the court s opinion, such inducement must be sufficient to cause a reasonable belief in the mind of the accused that by so confessing, he would get an advantage. As pointed out by the trial court and the High Court, though the confession statement has been initially made in the presence of R.C. Chhabra (PW-3) and M.P. Sethi by the appellant, no question was put to R.C. Chhabra (PW-3) that extrajudicial confession (Ex.-PW3/A) was an outcome of any threat, inducement or allurement. The statement which runs to eleven sheets has been held to be made by the appellant voluntarily. Likewise, confession statement (Ex.-PW-2/A) made before R.K. Soni (PW-2) was in the handwriting of the appellant made in the presence of R.K. Soni (PW-2) and H.O. Agrawal, the then Assistant Chief Officer (Inspection). Here again, it was not suggested to R.K. Soni (PW-2) that Ex.-PW-2/A was outcome of some threat or pressure. We do not find any good ground warranting interference with the said concurrent findings. In so far as the conviction under Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act, 1988, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. For conviction under Section 477-A IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. For conviction under Section 409 IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. The occurrence was of the year 1992- 94. Considering the passage of time and the facts and circumstance of the case, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant is reduced to three years. In the result, the conviction of the appellant under Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentence of imprisonment of two years is confirmed. The conviction under Sections 477-A IPC and 409 IPC is confirmed and the sentence of imprisonment under Section 409 IPC is reduced to three years.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of assigning clerical duties to a Peon.
2. Validity of the confessional statements.
3. Conviction under Sections 13(1)(C) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. Conviction under Sections 409 and 477-A IPC.
5. Sentencing and reduction of imprisonment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of assigning clerical duties to a Peon:
The appellant was employed as a Peon but was assigned clerical duties due to a shortage of staff. The defense argued that no clerical job can be assigned to a Peon as per bank rules, citing testimonies from bank officers (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, and PW-10). The court acknowledged that there was no office order authorizing the appellant to perform clerical duties. However, it was found that the appellant was indeed performing these duties, as confirmed by A.K. Gupta (PW-10). The court held that the absence of a formal office order did not absolve the appellant of responsibility for his actions.

2. Validity of the confessional statements:
The appellant contended that his confessional statements were not voluntary and were made under pressure from higher officials (PWs 2 and 3). The court examined the admissibility and evidentiary value of extra-judicial confessions, referencing several precedents. It was emphasized that extra-judicial confessions must be voluntary and inspire confidence. The court found that the appellant's confessions (Ex.-PW-2/A and Ex.-PW-3/A) were made voluntarily in the presence of senior officers and were corroborated by other evidence. The court dismissed the appellant's contention that the confessions were made under inducement or threat.

3. Conviction under Sections 13(1)(C) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
The appellant was convicted under these sections for misappropriating money entrusted to him as a public servant. The trial court found that the appellant, while performing clerical duties, pocketed money meant for deposit in Saving Bank accounts and made false credit entries. The High Court affirmed this conviction, and the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

4. Conviction under Sections 409 and 477-A IPC:
The appellant was also convicted under Section 409 IPC for criminal breach of trust and under Section 477-A IPC for falsification of accounts. The trial court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 409 IPC and two years under Section 477-A IPC, with all sentences to run concurrently. The appellant was acquitted of charges under Sections 468 and 471 IPC due to lack of precise evidence from the opinion expert. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions under Sections 409 and 477-A IPC but reduced the sentence under Section 409 IPC to three years, considering the passage of time and circumstances.

5. Sentencing and reduction of imprisonment:
The Supreme Court acknowledged the appellant's conviction under Section 13(1)(C) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 409 and 477-A IPC. However, considering the occurrence was from 1992-94, the court reduced the sentence of imprisonment under Section 409 IPC from five years to three years. The appellant was directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence, failing which he would be taken into custody.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, confirming the convictions under the relevant sections but reducing the sentence under Section 409 IPC to three years. The appellant was ordered to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentence.