9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (11) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th those objections P.W. 6 went to the office of the Delhi Development Authority on 11-7-1969. He met the accused who was Overseer-Section Officer and asked him to be permitted to make necessary corrections in the building plans. Instead of giving the file to P.W. 6 the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 30/- as bribe. P.W. 6 told him that he did not have the money with him whereupon the accused asked him to come on 14th July, 1969, in the afternoon with the money. On 14th July, 1969, P.W. 6 went to the Anti-Corruption Office at about 12 noon and gave a report Ex. P.W.I/A to P.W. 9, an Inspector of the Anti-Corruption Establishment. P.W. 9 sent for P.Ws. 1 and 2 from the Sales Tax office. The report made by P.W. 6 was read over to them. Thereafter, P.W. 6 produced three ten rupee notes, the numbers of which were noted by P.W. 9 in the presence of the Panch witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 2. Thereafter it was arranged that they should all proceed to the office of the Delhi Development Authority. There P.W. 6 was to give the bribe to the accused and on his giving the bribe to the accused, P.W. 1 was to give a signal to P.W. 9. As arranged P.W. 6 went to the office of the Delhi Development Authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s he thought that he (accused) was delaying his work. He also stated that Mr. Batla the owner of the plot had threatened him with dire consequences because he had raised objections to the plans submitted by him. 4. Both the Panch witnesses examined by the prosecution did not fully support the prosecution case. They resiled from the earlier statement made by them during the course of investigation. P.W. 1 stated that when P.W. 6 went into the room where the accused was working there was some talk between P.W. 6 and the accused but he did not hear what it was. He saw the accused taking out the file from the Almirah and giving it to P.W. 6. P.W. 6 took it to another table and was writing something in the file. Then he took back the file to the accused. The accused was busy with his own work. The complainant placed three ten Rupee notes in the file and handed over the file to the accused who placed it under the table near his feet. P.W. 6 signaled to him and he gave the agreed signal. The Inspector then entered the room and questioned the accused about the receipt of the bribe. The accused denied the charge. He (P.W. 1) then informed the Inspector that the money was in the file. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a trap witness'. That a trap witness may perhaps be considered as a person interested in the success of the trap may entitle a Court to view his evidence as that of an interested witness. Where the circumstances justify it, a Court may refuse to act upon the uncorroborated testimony of a trap witness. On the other hand a Court may well be justified in acting upon the uncorroborated testimony of a trap witness if the Court is satisfied from the facts and circumstances of the case that the witness is a witness of truth. Shri Anthony referred us to the decisions of this Court in Ram Prakash Arora v. The State of Punjab 1972CriLJ1293 , and Darshan Lal v. The Delhi Administration 1974CriLJ307 . In the first case Grover, J., observed as follows : It must be remembered that both Joginder Singh and Dalbir Singh P.Ws. were interested and partisan witnesses. They were concerned in the success of the trap and their evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness and in a proper case the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person. All that Grover J., said was that in an appropriate case corroboration may be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... portant particulars was contradicted by their earlier statements to the Police. Here we may refer to the grievance of Shri Anthony that the Trial Judge and the High Court treated the statements made by P.Ws. 1 and 2 to the Police as substantive evidence. There is no justification for the grievance. The witnesses, who were treated as hostile by the Prosecution were confronted with their earlier statements to the Police and their evidence was rejected as it was contradicted by their earlier statements. Such use of the statements is permissible under Section 155 of the Evidence Act and the proviso to Section 162(1) of the CrPC read with Section 145, Evidence Act. 8. Corroboration to the evidence of P.W. 6, if considered necessary, may be found in the following circumstances : First, his evidence is corroborated by the report Exh. PW. 1/A which he gave to P.W. 9 that day. Second, his evidence is corroborated by the conduct of the accused when he was questioned by P.W. 9. P.W. 6 stated that; when P.W. 9 entered the room and questioned the accused whether he had accepted Rs. 30/- from him, the accused was stunned and did not reply. P.W. 9 also stated that the accused kept mum when cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls within the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act [vide Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Om Prakash 1972CriLJ606 .] 10. The decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on which Shri Anthony placed reliance does not support his contention. There the learned Judges were not prepared to go into the question whether the evidence relating to the conduct of the accused was admissible as that question did not directly arise for consideration. On the other hand in Zwingiee Ariel v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR1954SC15 , this Court appeared to be inclined to hold that evidence to the effect that the accused started trembling and showed signs of being frightened on being questioned by the Police officer, if proved, was admissible, and, in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and Anr. v. State of Vindhya Pradesh 1954CriLJ910 , and, State of Madras v. A. Vaidyanatha Iyer 1958CriLJ232 , this Court actually relied on evidence relating to the conduct of the accused on being confronted by the Police officer with the allegation that he had received a bribe. In Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh's case the evidence relating to conduct on which reliance was pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
