Hemant Singh Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 3806 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Hemant Singh Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 April, 2025

                                          1


                            Digitally signed
                            by BHOLA
                            NATH KHATAI
                            Date:
                            2025.04.21
                            18:41:32 +0530




                                                 2025:CGHC:17965



                                                                      AFR

        HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                        Reserved on 22.03.2025

                        Delivered on 21.04.2025

                           CRA No. 21 of 2014

Hemant Singh Thakur S/o Nagendra Singh Thakur, Aged About 50
Years, Occupation - Patwari (Suspended), Patwari Halka No.126,
Bhatgaon, Tahsil - Abhanpur, District Raipur (CG), R/o Village Mohndi,
Police Station and Tahsil - Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
                                                            ... Appellant
                                     versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge, Arakshi Kendra Anti
Corruption Bureau, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
                                                         ... Respondent

For Appellant            : Mr. A. S. Rajput, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer


              Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
                        CAV JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of CrPC calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.12.2013 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) cum 1st Additional Session Judge, Raipur, in Special Criminal Case No.06/2006 whereby the appellant has been convicted and

sentenced as under:

Conviction Sentence u/s 7 of PC Act, Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs.5,000, in default of payment of fine, 4

months additional R.I. u/s 13(1)(d) read Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and fine of with section 13(2) Rs.5,000, in default of payment of fine, 4 of PC Act, 1988 months additional R.I.

2. It is an undisputed fact that at the time of incident which is said to have taken place in the month of September, 2005, appellant Hemant Singh Thakur was a public servant posted as Patwari at Patwari Halka No. 126, Abhanpur, Police Station and Tehsil - Abhanpur, District-Raipur.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the land measuring 4 acres 58 decimals in Khasra number 1238 situated in village Bharenga was registered in the name of the maternal grandmother of complainant Santram (PW-1). After death of his maternal grandmother, the said land was transferred in the name of complainant's mother Khorbaharin Bai. After death of Khorbaharin Bai, complainant Santram, his brother Ram Sahai (PW-5) and Bhabhi Brij Bai W/o late Bala Ram had a dispute with Guha Ram Satnami over the land. The Tehsildar, Abhanpur passed an order in favour of Guha Ram Satnami against which the complainant filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raipur. The appeal of the complainant was accepted on 06/08/2005 and an order was passed to enter the name of complainant Santram in the revenue records and a copy of which was sent to the Patwari/appellant through proper channel. On 01/09/2005, complainant Santram contacted Patwari/appellant Hemant Singh Thakur and requested him for Namantran/Mutation (to register his name in the revenue records), for which, the appellant demanded bribe of Rs.3,000 from him. Earlier also, the appellant had taken bribe of Rs.10,000 from

the complainant on demand of another copy of revenue record. Therefore, complainant Santram did not want to give him bribe again. On 13/09/2005, the complainant went to the office of Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur and submitted a written complaint (Exhibit P-1). The complainant (PW-1) was handed over a tape recorder to record the conversation regarding demand of bribe. The complainant recorded the conversation with the appellant and presented it, the transcription of which was prepared as Exhibit P-4. On the basis of written complaint Exhibit P-1, Dehati Nalsi Exhibit P-2 was registered on 14/09/2005. Again on 14/09/2005, on another complaint (Exhibit P-5) submitted by complainant Santram, a trap team was formed under the supervision of Inspector A. S. Gill (PW-13) posted in Anti Corruption Bureau Office, Raipur comprising Inspector Anil Pathak (not examined), Inspector S.K. Sen (PW-12), Head Constable Govind Ram (not examined), Constable Alexander Ekka (not examined). Assistant Engineer of Public Works Department, Bilaspur H. P. Verma (PW-7) and Executive Engineer of Public Works Department J. P. Tigga (PW-9) were also taken as independent witnesses. Complainant Santram presented six notes of Rs.500 each, whose numbers were recorded. A solution of phenolphthalein powder etc. was prepared. The complainant was instructed to give a signal by patting his head after the appellant had accepted the bribe amount. The trap team along with the complainant and the witnesses left for the Tehsil office, Aabhanpur. The complainant Santram (PW-1) was accompanied by his son Narendra Bhatt (PW-6) as shadow witness who went to the Tehsil office and saw the appellant present there. The complainant went inside the Tehsil office where the appellant demanded bribe from him. When he tried to give Rs.3,000/- which he had already kept in the left pocket of his shirt, the appellant came out of the office with him and started going towards the hotel and demanded the money from him. Then complainant Santram gave Rs.3,000/- which the appellant wrapped in a paper and kept

in the left pocket of his pant. As per the instruction, complainant Santram gave signal by patting his head. Then the trap team as well as the witnesses reached Tiwari Hotel and caught hold both the hands of the appellant. Upon search, the bribe amount wrapped in a paper was found in the left pocket of the pant worn by the appellant. When the number recorded earlier was matched with the number of the bribe amount, it was found to be correct. Then Panchnama Exhibit P-8 was prepared. Constable Alexander Ekka (not examined on account of his death) prepared the solution of sodium carbonate. The colour of the fingers of all the members of the trap team except complainant Santram did not change when they dipped their hands in the sodium carbonate solution prepared by Constable Alexander Ekka. When the appellant's fingers were dipped in the sodium carbonate solution, they became light pink. When the bribe money and wrapping paper were dipped, the same turned pink. The left pant pocket of the appellant also turned light pink upon washing. All the solutions were sealed, the bribe amount was wrapped in paper and dried and a Panchnama was prepared. Kistbandi Khatauni B-1 etc. related to the land was seized. Spot map was prepared by the concerned Patwari. The sealed solutions were sent to the laboratory for chemical examination. Permission for prosecution of the appellant was obtained and after completion of instigation, charge-sheeted was filed against the appellant for the aforesaid offence.

4. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses in support of its case. The statement of the appellant / accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. The appellant has stated that a few days before 12/09/2005, complainant Santram came to him and requested him to register

his name in the revenue record citing the order of the Sub- Divisional Officer, Raipur. To which he said that he will register his name when the departmental order comes, and will not do it on his instructions. Due to which complainant Santram got angry and left from there. Complainant Santram had given him the money telling him to give it to his brother. In this way, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. However, the brother of appellant, Manoj Thakur (DW-1), Patwari Makhanlal Banjare (DW-2) and retired Revenue Inspector T. R. Vyas (DW-3) have been examined by the appellant in his defence.

5. On the basis of the evidence and arguments presented by both the parties, the Special Judge held that the work of entering the name of complainant Santram Bhatt in the revenue record was pending with the appellant till the complaint was made on 14/09/2005. The appellant had demanded Rs.3,000/- from complainant Santram (PW-1) other than legal remuneration for making entry in the revenue record and committed the said offence by accepting bribe from the complainant for that work. Hence, learned trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that according to the written complaint of complainant Santram (Exhibit P-1), bribe was demanded from him on 01/09/2005, but the complainant has stated that he lodged the complaint on 13/09/2005 i.e. after a delay of about 12 days. No satisfactory explanation has been given for this delay. That delay shows the ill-intention of complainant Santram. Head constable Ghanshyam Mishra (PW-3) himself has not registered any crime on that complaint. He has supported complainant Santram. The written complaint Exhibit P-1 is also in

the handwriting of Ghanshyam Mishra who is not a reliable witness. No Rojnamcha Sanha has been registered by him. The prosecution has failed to examine the important witness Constable R. Alexander Ekka who is said to be a shadow witness. He submits that it has been clearly established from the statements of the witnesses that before the alleged complaint, Namantran/mutation had been done in the revenue records in favour of complainant Santram on 12/09/2005. At the time of the alleged complaint, the appellant had no pending work for mutation/Namantran. The complaint regarding demand of bribe on 13/09/2005 is baseless. According to Manoj Thakur (DW-1), complainant Santram used to borrow money from him and return it. He further stated that 12-14 days prior to the alleged trap incident, complainant Santram had borrowed Rs.4,000 from him which he had returned to the appellant on the date of incident. Counsel of appellant further submitted that the Panch witness of the complainant side J. P. Tigga (PW-9) in paragraph-14, Investigating Officer A. S. Gill (PW-

13) in paragraph-25 and Manoj Thakur (Defense Witness-1) and retired Revenue Inspector T. R. Vyas (Defense Witness-3) have stated that at the time of the alleged trap proceedings, complainant Santram had given money to the appellant asking him to give the money to his brother. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt that the appellant had demanded bribe from the complainant for Namantran/mutation in the revenue record and accepted Rs.3,000/- as bribe. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside. He prayed for allowing the appeal by acquitting the appellant of the said offence. Learned counsel for appellant has relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Kerala and another v. C. P. Rao, (2011) 6 SCC 450 and Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731 in support of his argument.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the case of prosecution and there is no reason to disbelieve them. The impugned judgment is based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The arguments raised by the counsel for appellant in the appeal are not acceptable. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment.

9. On behalf of the prosecution, complainant Santram (PW-1), his brother Ram Sahay Bhatt (PW-5) and son Narendra Bhatt (PW-6) who is a shadow witness, have been examined who have confirmed the complaint and the entire proceedings. Head constable Ghanshyam Mishra (PW-3) has stated that complainant Santram had come to him to make a complaint which was recorded vide Exhibit P-1. Inspector Jogendra Singh (PW-2) has stated that pursuant to the written complaint, Dehati Nalishi and First Information Report (PW-10) were registered against the appellant. Patwari Vishwanath Sahu (PW-4) has stated that the map of the place of incident of the Tehsil office, Abhanpur was prepared vide Ex.P-9. Panch witnesses H. P. Verma (PW-7) and J. P. Tigga (PW-9) have confirmed the trap proceedings. Arun Kumar Mishra (PW-8), Assistant Category-II in Law and Legislative Affairs Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, has proved the sanction order of prosecution against the appellant vide Exhibit P-19. Sunil Chandravanshi (PW-10), Assistant Category-III of Sub-Divisional Office, Aabhanpur has presented the original service book of the appellant (Exhibit P-21). Deputy Superintendent of Police R. S. Dhruv (PW-11) has said that the seizure of revenue records related to the Namantran/mutation was made vide Exhibit P-22. Inspector S. K. Sen (PW-12) has stated that after the written complaint

(Exhibit P-1), A. S. Gill (PW-13) had given a micro tape recorder with a new cassette to complainant Santram. The entire investigation proceedings have been done by Inspector A. S. Gill (PW-13) of Anti Corruption Bureau.

10. From the statements of the aforesaid witnesses and documentary evidence, it is clear that complainant Santram has stated in the written complaint Exhibit P-1 that the appellant had demanded a bribe of Rs.3,000/- on 01/09/2005 but he made the written complaint on 13/09/2005. No satisfactory explanation has come from the prosecution for this delay of 12 days. It is also clear that Constable Alexander Ekka, who prepared the solution of sodium carbonate during trap proceedings, died and therefore, his examination could not be done before the Court. The transcript Exhibit P-4 has also been edited. Complainant Santram himself has admitted in his examination that before depositing the said tape recorder in the office, he had taken it to the shop at Abhanpur where he played and listened and then presented it to the Police Officers. As defence witness, retired revenue inspector T. R. Vyas has stated that the judicial order is directly recorded in B-1 and Khasra, whereas Namantran is done on the basis of the entry

made in the Register Sale Deed and Will (वसीयतनामा). He has also stated that he was posted as a Revenue Inspector from 2004 to 2010 and recognizes the handwriting of the appellant. A photocopy of the Kistbandi Khatauni B-1 of village Bharenga is attached in the record, which is of the year 2000-01 and there is signature of the appellant. On perusal of which it is clear that the record has been corrected as per the order dated 06/08/2005 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Raipur in Revenue Case No.131/2006 year 2003-04, on which the signature of the appellant is there as Patwari.

11. The issue with regard to evidentiary value and credibility of the

recording in the cases of trap has been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajesh Gupta v. State through Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1107 and it has been held as under:-

"12. On the issue of evidentiary value and credibility of the recording in the cases of trap, the law is well- settled in the case of Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh, 1985 Supp SCC 611, wherein this Court held that tape-recorded statement is admissible in evidence if the voice of the speaker is identified by the maker of the record and other persons recognizing his voice. In case, the maker is unable to identify the voice, strict proof would be required to determine whether or not, the said voice is of alleged speaker. The accuracy of the tape-recorded statement must be proved by the maker of the record by satisfactory evidence, direct or circumstantial. The possibility of tampering with, or erasure of any part of the tape-recorded statement must be totally excluded. The voice of the particular speaker must be clearly audible and must not be lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbances, otherwise, the transcript as prepared, is inadmissible in evidence.

12. In the present case, H. P. Verma (PW-7), the witness of transcript Ex.P-4, has admitted in his statement that the tape recorder produced by the complainant (PW-1) was played and heard, but the conversation was not recorded properly. Hence the things recorded therein were not audible clearly, some words were clear while some were not understandable. It is also noteworthy that in transcript P-4, parts E to E have been cut after making some notes, which shows that the voices in the cassette were not clear.

13. Complainant Santram (PW-1) has stated that he recorded his conversation with the appellant in the tape recorder given to him by the Anti Corruption Bureau, but in cross-examination he has also admitted that he had gone to the shop in Abhanpur and listened to that recording first. For this reason, the appellant side has stated

the said tape recorder to be suspicious and therefore, the transcript as prepared, is not admissible in evidence. Thus, the transcript (Ex.P-4) becomes doubtful by which the alleged demand is not proved beyond doubt.

14. Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing about the conviction under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, in (2009) 3 SCC 779 (C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala) , held that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused and observed as under:

"18. In Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1979) 4 SCC 725, this Court took the view that (at SCC p. 727, para 2) mere recovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. The mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe."

15. In the case of N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu,(2021) 3 SCC 687, reiterating the judgment of C.M. Girish Babu (supra) and B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55 , it was held by the Supreme Court that it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe and observed as follows:

"26. It is equally well settled that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused. Reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, (2009) 3 SCC 779 and in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55. In the aforesaid judgments of this Court while considering the case under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 it is reiterated that to prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe. Absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such

offence. In the said judgments it is also held that even the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. It is also fairly well settled that initial presumption of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the trial court.

27. The relevant paras 7, 8 and 9 of the case of B. Jayaraj (supra) read as under:

"7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By way of illustration, reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P., (2010) 15 SCC 1 and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, (2009) 3 SCC 779.

8. In the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution case insofar as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint (Ext.P-11) before LW9, and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW1 and the contents of Ext.

P-11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Sections 13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of

corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established.

9.Insofar as the presumption permissible to be drawn under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumption can only be inrespect of the offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. In any event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act.Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent."

16. Coming to the facts of the present case, in light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid from the evidence that according to the written complaint (Exhibit P-1), the appellant had demanded bribe on 01/09/2005, but complainant Santram lodged the complaint on 13/09/2005, i.e. after 12 days, for which no satisfactory reason has been offered.

17. As per the evidence presented and the discussion made by the Special Judge in paragraphs 29 to 32 of its judgment, the Kistbandi Khatauni B-1 of the concerned land was seized by the prosecution from the record. According to which, the name of complainant Santram (PW-1) had already been entered in the revenue record even before the complaint was made by the complainant, which has been confirmed by the then Revenue Inspector T. R. Vyas in his statement as a defense witness and which could not be refuted. The Special Judge has accepted that the entry made in the said photocopy is not proved by the defence and on that basis reached to the conclusion that the mutation/Namantaran of the complainant was pending with the appellant on the date of complaint. However, the photocopy of Kisbandi Khatauni presented by the prosecution itself can be read in favour of the appellant. From which it is

concluded that the mutation/Namantran of complainant had been done before the date of complaint and trap, that means no case of mutation of the complainant was pending with the appellant on the date of alleged trap.

18. Thus, apart from complainant Santram (PW-1) who has stated about the demand of bribe, his brother Ram Sahay and son Narendra are interested witnesses as they are close relatives. The report was lodged with a delay of 12 days before which the name of complainant Santram had already been recorded in the revenue reocrd. The tape recorder is not proved beyond doubt, some voices in it are not clear. In the above situation, the fact of the appellant demanding bribe has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

19. As far as the seizure of Rs.3,000/- from the appellant under trap is concerned, in this case, the appellant has stated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the amount given to him by complainant Santram was a refund of the loan amount given to the complainant (PW-1) by his brother, Manoj Thakur (DW-1). This fact is also confirmed from the statements of the brother of the appellant Manoj Thakur (DW-1) and the then Revenue Inspector T .R. Vyas (DW-3). In addition, the Panch witness J. P. Tigga (PW-

9) - Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, has also stated at the end of paragraph 14 of his evidence that on the spot, the appellant said that complainant Santram had given him the said amount asking him to give it to his brother. Similarly, A. S. Gill (PW-

13), the Investigating Officer who made the trap team and seizure, has also admitted in paragraph 25 of his cross-examination that when the appellant was caught on the spot and the money was taken out from his pocket, the appellant had stated that while giving the money, complainant Santram (PW-1) had said to give the said amount to his brother Manoj Thakur (DW-1).

20. Thus, not only the statements of defence witnesses but also the

statements of investigating officer Inspector A.S. Gill (PW-13) and Panch witness J. P. Tigga (PW-9) support the defence of the appellant that the amount given by complainant Santram to the appellant was not bribe but the refund of the loan amount given by the appellant's brother Manoj to complainant Santram. In view of the statements of prosecution witnesses J. P. Tigga (PW-9) and Inspector A. S. Gill (PW-13), it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the said amount of Rs.3,000/- was given by complainant Santram to the appellant as bribe on demand of the appellant and the appellant accepted it as bribe.

21. On the basis of the above discussion and in the light of the aforesaid judgments, this Court finds that the case of prosecution against the appellant is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction of the appellant Hemant Singh Thakur is not based on clear, sufficient, reliable and valid evidence. In such a situation, the "judgment in question" is not found to be sustainable and is liable to be set aside.

22. Hence, the appeal is allowed. The "judgment in question" is set aside and appellant Hemant Singh Thakur is acquitted of the said charges giving benefit of doubt. Appellant Hemant Singh Thakur is said to be on bail. His bail bond will remain effective for a period of 6 months in view of section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The original record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back to the trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.

Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

Khatai