Baljit Singh Alias Bheeta vs State of Punjab

Sabina, J.—Prosecution story, in brief, is that Jaswinder Singh complainant was present in his house on 20.4.1998. At about 4.00 A.M., two persons came to his house. Complainant was taken by them to the office of CIA Staff, Khanna and was given beatings. It was alleged by the said persons that the complainant had murdered his daughter aged 1 1/4 years. Daughter of the complainant had died 26 days earlier to the incident. Police officials told the complainant that they would call the appellant and he would give a message to him. After some time police officials called the appellant to the spot. Appellant told the complainant that he could get him released from the police custody if he agreed to pay some amount out of the sale proceeds of his land. Appellant demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- from the complainant. Complainant refused to oblige. Complainant was warned that he would also meet the same fate as Gurdeep Singh, his neighbour, who had been killed by the police officials. The deal was struck at Rs. 1,00,000/- and two bags of wheat. Family members of the complainant were standing outside the CIA Staff and were not allowed to meet him. Then appellant took the complainant to his house. On 20.4.1998, complainant gave Rs. 60,000/- to the appellant and agreed to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 40,000/- after a couple of days. Appellant threatened the complainant that in case the remaining amount was not paid, then he would be lifted from his house. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against Constable Anokh Singh, Constable Om Parkash and the appellant.

Charge was framed against Constable Anokh Singh, Constable Om Parkash u/s 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (''Act'' for short). Charge was framed against the appellant u/s 8/9 of the Act.

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 09 witnesses during trial.

Appellant when examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the close of prosecution evidence, has prayed as under:-

I am innocent. On 5.5.1998, I along with my Artist was performed a culture programme at Khanna. Bant Singh DSP was present in the function. He misbehaved with one of my female artist. I objected it and we made a complaint to SSP, Khanna regarding the misbehave of DSP Bant Singh. He became annoyed as he was called by the DSP and was given a warning to behave himself. Due to that revenge DSP falsely implicated me in this case. I was apprehended on 17.5.1998 at night from my house. Rupees which were more than twenty thousand along with my clothes were taken by the police along with me.

Accused examined DW-1 Amar Chand in their defence.

The Trial Court vide judgment dated 20.8.2001 acquitted accused Anokh Singh and Om Parkash of the charge framed against them. Appellant was convicted and sentenced qua commission of offence punishable u/s 8/9 of the Act vide judgment/order dated 20.8.2001. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no offence could be said to have been committed by the appellant as the police officials were acquitted of the charge framed against them. The allegation against the appellant was that he had taken the money to be paid to the police officials Anokh Singh and Om Parkash. The said police officials had been acquitted by the Trial Court. Even otherwise, the story put-forth by the prosecution was unbelievable.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the complainant as well as PW-2 Pritam Kaur and PW-3 Jagroop Singh had deposed that they had paid Rs. 60,000/- to the appellant to be paid to the police officials. Recovery of Rs. 20,000/- had been effected from the appellant during investigation.

The facts of the present case are peculiar. As per the prosecution case, complainant was lifted to CIA Staff, Khanna by two police officials. It is not understandable as to why the appellant was called to the police station to accept bribe on their behalf. Admittedly, appellant was not known to the complainant. The police officials had taken the complainant to the police station and had given beatings to him. In this situation, police officials could have directly accepted bribe from the complainant. There was no occasion for the appellant to join as a go between with regard to payment of bribe money by the complainant to the police officials. Complainant as well as the other material witnesses have failed to identify the police officials during trial while appearing in the witness box. Although complainant, his mother and brother-in-law have deposed against the appellant that he had taken Rs. 60,000/- from them but the said fact is not corroborated by independent witness PW-7 Tarsem Singh and PW-4 Piara Singh. In the present case, it is not the case of the prosecution that appellant had induced the complainant to pay bribe to him so that he could pay the same to the police officials. Rather, the police officials had demanded bribe and had sent the appellant to accept the same on their behalf. The said police officials have not been identified by the complainant and his family members during trial. Although Rs. 20,000/- have been recovered from the appellant during investigation but there is nothing to corroborate the fact that the said amount was the same which had been handed over by the complainant to the appellant. Further, there is nothing on record to suggest that the daughter of the complainant had actually died under mysterious circumstances due to which a case could be foisted against the complainant qua murder of his daughter. Rather, no death certificate of the daughter of the complainant has been produced on record. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances in mind, it is evident that prosecution case is not free from doubt. It is a settled proposition of law that whenever there is doubt in the prosecution case, the benefit of the same has to go to the accused. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment/order dated 20.8.2001 of conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside. Consequently, appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him.