Manphool Singh vs State
2002 Latest Caselaw 997 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.5.1978 of the Special Judge in Corruption Case No.55/76, whereby the learned Judge vide his order dated 15.5.1978, has held the appellant guilty under Section 5(2) read with Section5(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 342 IPC and 384 IPC as also Section 161 IPC and further by his orderdated 18.5.1978 has been pleased to sentence the appellant to undergo R.I. for two years each for offences under Section 161 IPC, Section 384 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 342 IPC. He was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for each of the offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the P.C.Act and under Section 384 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one year on each count.All the substantive sentencesof imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.

2. I am informed that the appellant, Manphool Singh, has died but his legal representative, namely, Mrs. Misri Devi has been brought on record. Counsel for Mrs. Misri Devi, therefore, has argued this appeal.

3. Brief facts of the case as noted by the Special Judge are as follows:-

"The case was registered on 17.2.76 on the basis of a complaint Ex.PW7/A dated 11.8.75 addressed to Hon'ble the Home Minister (Sh.Om Mehta) by Radhey Sham (PW.8), Ram Kishore (PW.7) and Om Parkash (PW.13. A resume of this complaint is as follows:

The applicants are theresidents of Haider Kuli situated within the territorial jurisdiction of P.S. Lahori Gate. On the night intervening 6/7-8-75, A.S.I. Manphool Singh of P.S. Lahori Gate accompanied by four constablescame to their house. The applicants were awakened and were told that they were being arrested under the defense of India Rules.Quietly they sent a boy to call Ram Parshad who is the Secretary ofthe Mohalla Committee. Ram Parshad Shingal met them when they werebeing taken away by A.S.I. Manphool Singh with him.Ram Parshad enquired from A.S.I. Manphool Singh as to where the applicants were being takento. Hetold him that they had been arrested under defense ofIndia Rules. Ram Parshad then exclaimed that he could not interfere if these persons were being taken away under the defense of India Rules. So, they were brought to P.S. Lahori Gate and were there asked to sit on the floor.There, invectives were used against them which were intolerable. After sometime, A.S.I. Manphool Singh asked them to pay them Rs.6,000/-for their being released.The applicants, however, expressed their inability to afford to pay thisbig amount. Ultimately, settlement was made at Rs.800/-. Nevertheless, A.S.I. Manphool Singh threatened them that if this matter was looked out to anybody, then they would not be able to live in the Illaqua. Daya Ram, Constable in plain clothes was sent with them to collect the amount. Somehow or other, they collected the amount of Rs.800/- and handed over the same to Daya Ram, Constable. So, they prayed that necessary protectionbe given to them and the culprits be accordingly punished."

4. Theprosecution in orderto establish their case examined as many as 18 witnesses. Of these PW-7, 8 and 13 are the complainants. PW-7, Ram Kishore has stated that Radhey Shyam and Om Prakash are hisneighbours andon the nightintervening 6-7.8.1975, when they were sleeping in their houses at about 12.30 a.m.two police officials knocked at the door and when itwas opened he found Manphool Singh, ASI in uniform, bearing his name platestanding there. He informed him that he was required to accompany him to the police station and he was to be taken into custody under defense of India Rules.Radhey Shyam and Om Prakash who were residing on the first floor were also standing their. They also accompanied PW-7, Ram Kishore to the police Station. Whilethey were enroute the police station, one Shanker was sent to call Ram Prashad, who was the Secretary, Mohalla Committee. He asked ASI Manphool Singh, where they were being taken on which the ASI replied that they were being taken away under the defense of IndiaRules.PW-7, Ram Kishore, Om Prakash and Radhey Shyam were takento police station Lahori Gate. At the police stationthe accused person abused and intimidated them saying that they would be confined under the defense of India Rules and nobody would listen to them for two years and if anything was to be done they should do it now. Thereafter, ASI Manphool Singh demanded asum of Rs.6,000/-, stating that otherwise they would be confined under defense of India Rules and the future of their children would be ruined. This witness Along with the others pleaded their inability to pay this amount saying that they were poor men. After an hour or so a settlement of Rs.800/- was arrivedat. This witness further states that they were threatened that, in the event, they gave any information of this incident to anyone, they would be exiled from the illaqa of police station Lahori Gate. Upon this being made clear, Daya Ram, Along with the complainants was sent to the house of PW-7,Ram Kishore, to make payment. Upon a collection undertaken amongst them they were able to come with Rs.700/- butto make up the balance, Rs.100/- was procured from Shyamlal, who was living in the neighborhood.

5. On the following morning, Ram Prashad, the Secretary, Mohalla Committee, met the complainants and advised them to report the excess meted out to them. The complainantsmet Deputy Superintendent of Police and other officials of theillaqaand ultimately gave the application, Ex.PW7/A, which was signed by PW-7, Ram Kishore as also the other two complainants.

6. On the basis of the statements of PW-8, Radhey Shyam to the effect that when they were being taken from the house tothe police station, he had sent his son Shankar Lal to callthe Secretary Mohalla Committee, while PW-13, Om Prakash states that one Harish Chand was sent to call him and not Shankar Lal.The defense counsel seeks to build up a case of contradictions.

7. I find that the statement of PW-7 and PW-8, more or less supports the narration offactsother than this. This contradictionin the statement of the complainant according to learned counsel for the appellant are material enough to discard and discredit the witnesses, PW-7 and PW-8. Other minor discrepancieshave also been pointed out, inasmuchas whether whilemaking the complaint three of them were present or only one witness was present. Except for these discrepancies, there appears to be no major contradiction which can go into the root of the matter.The aforesaid witnesses and their depositionwas carefully examined by the trial court, where in paragraph 7,the trialcourt has elaborately discussed the evidence of PW-7, PW-8, PW-9, PW-13 and PW-11.

8. I have been taken through the discussion and reasoning of the learned trial Judge. On a perusal of the same, I find that thereis no infirmity in the reasoning and appreciation ofthe evidence by the trial Judge. I find that there is no material contradiction which can lead to the conclusion that PW-7, PW-8 and PW-13are not trustworthy witnesses. If the statement of these witnesses is believed, I find that the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond a shadow of doubt. As regards Daya Ram, it has already been held in Crl.A.100/78, that he wasa neutral party and had no idea as to whatthe transaction was between ASI Manphool Singh and the complainants and, therefore, was given the benefit of doubt.

9. Having, therefore,reconsidered the matter, I find no merit in the appeal.

Crl.A.102/78 is dismissed.