9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (2) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6) was involved in an accident on July 12, 1969. The scooter rickshaw and a tonga which were involved in the accident were taken to the Police Station, Kashmere Gate by the accused, a Police constable attached to that station. P.W. 3 obtained orders from the Magistrate for the release of his vehicle and went to the Police Station to obtain delivery of the vehicle. The accused, who was present took him outside and told him that the vehicle would be given to him only if he paid a bribe of Rs. 60. P.W. 3 then went away. He went to the Anti Corruption Department and made statement to Inspector Paras Nath, P.W. 8. After recording the statement of P.W. 3, P.W. 8 sent for two persons Davinder Kumar (P.W. 4) and Kewal Krishan. The statement of P.W. 3 was read out to P.W. 3 in the presence of the two Panch witnesses Davinder Kumar and Kewal Krishan. P.W. 3 then produced six currency notes of the value of Rs. 10 each. The numbers of the notes were noted and they were treated with phenolphthelene powder. After the usual instructions were given to P.W. 3 and the panch witnesses, the raiding party proceeded towards Kashmere Gate. P.W. 3, P.W. 6 and Kewal Krishan went into the Police Station, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scooter rickshaw. P.W. 3 stretched. his hand with the money towards the pocket of the accused's trousers but the accused said the money might be paid to the person for whom it was meant. He refused to receive the money and jerked P.W. 3's hand with his hand as a result of which the notes came to be flung across the wall into the neighbouring room. He told the Inspector that the notes had been flung across the wall and that the accused had neither demanded the amount from him nor accepted the money from him. On the other hand the accused had refused to take the money from him. The Inspector recovered the notes from the neighbouring room, placed them on the table and thereafter subjected the handkerchief and the pocket of the accused's trousers to the phenolphthelene test. The implication of this part of the evidence was that it was as a result of the handling of these articles by the Inspector that they came to have phenolphthelene powder and that was the reason why the solution turned pink. P.W.3 was treated as hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution with reference to the earlier statements made by him. P.W. 6 followed suit and he too was declared hostile and cros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere excluded from consideration there would be no evidence of any demand or acceptance of bribe by the accused. All that the prosecution would be left with would be the evidence of the Inspector and P.W. 4 to the effect that the accused took out the currency notes from the right side pocket of his trousers and flung them across the wall into the adjoining room. That evidence according to the learned Counsel would not be sufficient, even if accepted, to draw the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court in Sita Ram v. The State of Rajasthan 1975CriLJ1224 and Suraj Mal v. The State (Delhi Administration 1979CriLJ1087 . 7. The learned Counsel was right in his submission about the free use made by the Courts below of statements of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation. Section 162 of the CrPC imposes a bar on the use of any statement made by any person to a Police Officer in the course of investigation at any enquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made, except for the purpose of contradicting the witness in the manner provided by S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh to say that there is no rule of prudence which has crystallized into a rule of law, nor indeed any rule of prudence, which requires that the evidence of such officers should be treated on the same footing as evidence of accomplices and there should be insistence on corroboration. In the facts and circumstances of a particular case a Court may be disinclined to act upon the evidence of such an officer without corroboration, but, equally, in the facts and circumstances of another case the Court may unhesitatingly accept the evidence of such an officer. It is all a matter of appreciation of evidence and on such matters there can be no hard and fast rule, nor can there be any precedential guidance. We are forced to say this because of late we have come across several judgments of Courts of Session and sometimes even of High Courts where reference is made to decisions of this Court on matters of appreciation of evidence and decisions of pure question of fact. While on this subject of appreciation of evidence we may also refer to an argument of Shri Frank Anthony based on the observations of a learned single judge in Kharaiti Lal v. The State, 1965 (1) Del .L.T.362 that persons hol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may also be proved by circumstantial evidence. The events which followed in quick succession in the present case lead to the only inference that the money was obtained by the accused from P.W.3. Under Section 114 of the Evidence Act the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case. One of the illustrations to Section 114 of the Evidence Act is that the Court may presume that a person who is in possession of the stolen goods soon after the theft, is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. So too, in the facts and circumstances of the present case the Court may presume that the accused who took out the currency notes from his pocket and flung them across the wall had obtained them from P.W. 3, who a few minutes earlier was shown to have been in possession of the notes. Once we arrive at the finding that the accused had obtained the money from P.W. 3, the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
