Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1406 of 2003
PETITIONER:
State of West Bengal
RESPONDENT:
Kailash Chandra Pandey
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/10/2004
BENCH:
D.M.Dharmadhikari & A.K. Mathur
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
A.K. MATHUR, J.
This appeal is directed against the order passed by the High
Court of Calcutta dated 9.2.2002 passed in C.R.A. No.192 of 2000
whereby learned Single Judge has reversed the conviction of the
accused-respondent, passed by the Additional District & Sessions
Judge and Special Judge, 3rd Court, Barasat, 24- Parganas (N) in
Special Case No.2 of 1997, whereby learned Addl. District &
Sessions Judge & Special Judge convicted the accused under
section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced
him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.1000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month
more.
Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are
as follows. On May 23, 1996, one Shankar Prasad Sengupta, the
proprietor of M/s. Rakshak Security Services lodged a complaint
before the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation,
Anti Corruption Branch, Calcutta stating that he was awarded a
cleaning contract at New Domestic Terminal Complex at Netaji
Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport, Calcutta vide award
letter dated December 3, 1994 for two years with effect from
December 21,1994. As per practice, he was required to submit the
bills in the Office of the Deputy General Manager (Airport) and
thereafter the bills on presentation were processed by the House
Keeping department functioning under the respondent. Accused-
respondent was the final authority for passing of the bills for payment.
It is alleged that the accused- respondent demanded illegal money for
passing the bills which the complainant- Shankar Prasad Sengupta
(P.W.3) had managed till May 21,1996. P.W.3 submitted a bill for a
sum of Rs.1,39,000/- on May 23,1996 and made a request to the
accused-respondent to pass the said bill. Accused-respondent
insisted that unless P.W.3 pays a sum of Rs.5000/- he would not
pass the bill. Accused-respondent directed P.W.3 to make payment
of Rs.5000/- on May 24, 1996 after lunch hours in his Office. As
P.W.3 had no intention to pay the said amount, he lodged a written
complaint before the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Anti Corruption
Department disclosing all the details on the basis of which a
complaint was registered against the accused-respondent for
commission of an offence under section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and Mr.M.S.Hazari, Inspector, C.B.I. was
entrusted with the investigation of the case. P.W. 3 was called by the
Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. in his office for laying a trap. A pre-
trap memo was prepared with necessary particulars. Pursuant to that
pre-trap, a trap party including P.W.3 left to the Office of the accused-
respondent to lay the trap and they were accompanied with two
independent witnesses i.e. P.W.4-Ratan Krishna Das, an employee
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9
of Oriental Bank of Commerce and P.W.15- Sanjay Kumar, a Law
Officer of the Bank along with the Investigating Officer. On the fateful
day, the money was handed over by P.W.3 to the accused-
respondent and he pocketed the money. Thereafter, the Investigating
Officer accompanied by others entered into the room, seized the
money and arrested the accused-respondent. The sanction was
obtained on December 10,1996 and after the accord of the proper
sanction by the Chairman, Airports Authority of India, charge-sheet
was submitted against the accused-respondent on January 31,1997.
Accused-respondent denied the charges and pleaded that he
was falsely implicated with ulterior motive. The prosecution in support
of its case examined 16 witnesses and no witness was examined on
behalf of the defence. The trial Judge after considering the matter,
after recording the evidence and hearing both the sides found the
guilt of the accused established and convicted the accused-
respondent under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and
sentenced him as above said.
Aggrieved against that order, the accused-respondent preferred
an appeal before the High Court. Learned Single Judge considering
the matter and hearing the parties, acquitted the accused of all the
charges on the grounds that the currency notes were not sent to the
Forensic Laboratory for chemical examination, the pyjama which was
given to the accused to wear after taking the pant, the same was not
produced; that the money was kept in the left hand pocket but the
hand wash was taken of the right hand; the amount covered by the
impugned bills had already been released prior to the alleged tender
of the money and the envelope containing the alleged money was
not produced. Therefore, on the basis of these infirmities, learned
Single Judge of the High Court acquitted the accused-respondent of
all the charges. Aggrieved against this order of the learned Single
Judge of the High Court of Calcutta, the present appeal has been
filed by the State of West Bengal represented by the C.B.I.,S.P.E.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records. The main witness in the present case is P.W.3- Shankar
Prasad Sengupta to whom the cleaning contract for the Calcutta
Airport was sanctioned for a period with effect from December
21,1994 to December 20,1996. He has deposed that the bill amount
for March, 1996 was received by him late while the bill amount for
the month of April, 1996 was reduced as there was reduction towards
poor performance. At the relevant point of time Shri Kailash Pandey
was the Deputy General Manager(Airport) at Calcutta Airport. He
stated that after this deduction he met the General Manager and the
Airport Director, Calcutta but without any relief. Therefore, again he
approached the Deputy General Manager, Airport and he told him
that he is to be paid Rs.5000/- per month for a permanent relief
against any future deduction from any bill and for getting the payment
in time. He deposed that he did not agree to the illegal demand and
he approached the C.B.I. for taking their protection. He filed a written
complaint before the concerned Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. at
his Office at Nizam Palace, Calcutta. It is alleged that he gave a sum
of Rs.5000/- to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. on May 24,1996
and some chemicals were mixed with the currency notes and were
handed over to him. He along with some C.B.I. Officers went to the
Airport Authority of India, Calcutta and two other outsiders also
accompanied them to the Head Officer and one of them was, Sanjay
Kumar (P.W.15), an employee of Oriental Bank of Commerce. The
numbers of the currency notes were noted in a sheet of paper in the
Office of the S.P.,C.B.I. and he put his signature on the said sheet of
papers where numbers of the currency notes were noted down. All
these currency notes were produced during the trial and the numbers
of the currency notes tallied with the aforesaid numbers noted except
item No.10. Thereafter, it is alleged that he went to the chamber of
Deputy General Manager along with Sanjay Kumar and another
person and he introduced the two persons to Mr.Pandey as his friend
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9
cum-partners of the business and he told him that he had brought the
money for a total sum of Rs.5000/- and then he handed over the ten
currency notes of Rs.500/- each for a total amount of Rs.5000/- to
Mr.Pandey and Mr.Pandey received the said amount and kept the
same in his pocket. It is alleged that after handing over the said
money to Mr.Pandey he came out of the chambers of Mr.Pandey
where the C.B.I. Officers along with others were already present and
intimated him about the delivery of the notes. Thereafter, Mr.Pandey
was apprehended and currency notes were recovered from the
pocket of Mr.Pandey. The C.B.I. Officers prepared necessary papers
and he put his signature there. Thereafter, the C.B.I. Officer brought
some chemicals in glass bottles and the hands of Mr.Pandey were
washed by the C.B.I. Officers by the chemical of the said bottle. After
washing the hands of Mr.Pandey the chemicals were preserved in
another glass bottle. Similarly pocket of pant was washed and the
water was kept in another glass bottle. All the bottles were sealed
and labels were pasted on the same and he put his signature on
those bottles. The currency notes were wrapped and sealed. P.W.3
was cross-examined at length. But nothing substantial was brought
out so as to dislodge his testimony.
The next witness in this case is P.W.4-Ratan Krishna Das who
was one of the eye witnesses. He was an Officer of Oriental Bank of
Commerce, Bowbazar Branch. On the direction of his higher
authority he had to go to the Office of the Superintendent of Police,
C.B. I. on May 24, 1996 and he was accompanied with one
Mr.Sanjay Kumar who was the Law Officer of that Bank. It is alleged
that there he met Shri R.K.Sarkar who was the Inspector, C.B.I. and
another person named, Shri M.S. Hazari who was also an Inspector,
C.B.I. and he made enquiry as to the reason for calling him and he
was told that one Shankar Prasad Sengupta had filed a written
complaint against some Officer of Airport Authority and they have to
accompany them, as demand raised by accused-respondent ,
Kailash Pandey was unauthorized money in relation to the bill of
Shankar Prasad Sengupta. He deposed that the C.B.I. Officers asked
Shankar Prasad Sengupta to produce the currency notes which were
to be offered to Mr.Pandey. and thereto Shri Sengupta produced ten
currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination and the C.B.I. Officers
coated the same with some powder and handed over the same again
to Shankar Sengupta and advised him to offer the said money to
Mr.Pandey. It is further deposed that he along with the C.B.I.
Officers, Sanjay Kumar and Shankar Prasad Sengupta left for
Calcutta Airport in a vehicle and Sanjay Kumar was instructed to
remain with Shankar Prasad Sengupta as a witness before offering
the currency notes to Mr.Pandey and he was asked by the C.B.I.
Officers to wait with them in a corner outside the chamber of
Mr.Pandey. It is alleged that before starting for the Calcutta Airport,
the numbers of the currency notes were also noted down and
signatures were also obtained on the pre-trap memorandum. It is
deposed that before proceeding to Calcutta Airport he was asked to
handle a white paper and thereafter he was asked to wash his hands
with some liquid and after that the liquid became pink colour and the
said pink colour was preserved in the glass bottle and marked "A".
The said bottle was produced in the Court. Shankar Prasad Sengupta
accompanied with Sanjay Kumar went to the Airport in the chamber
of Shri Pandey and they were asked to give a signal by touching their
forehead after coming out of the chamber of Mr.Pandey as a signal
that the money has been handed over. It is alleged that Shankar
Prasad Sengupta and Sanjay Kumar came out and gave the signal
and the same was noticed by him along with the C.B.I. Officers. On
entering the chamber of Mr.Pandey, the C.B.I. Officers disclosed their
identity and told him that he has received money from Shankar
Prasad Sengupta but Shri Pandey refused the same. Thereafter, the
C.B.I. Officers got the hands of Shri Pandey washed with water in a
pot and it was found that the said water turned into pink colour and
the said water was kept in a glass bottle which was marked "B". Then
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9
the C.B.I. officers again asked Shri Pandey to bring out the said
currency notes and then Shri Pandey himself brought out the money
from the left pocket of his pant and handed over the same to the
C.B.I. Officers. The pant of Shri Pandey was grey colour and Shri
Pandey was asked to change his pant there and he was given a
pyjama to wear. Subsequently, the left pocket of the pant of Shri
Pandey was washed and the said washed water also turned pink.
The said water was also preserved in a glass bottle marked as "C".
Thereafter, the currency notes were seized and seizure list was
prepared and his signature was obtained on it. The glass bottles
which contained the hand wash of Shri Pandey that turned pink as
well as the pink colour liquid obtained after washing of the left pocket
of the pant of Shri Pandey were sealed, and labels were affixed on
the same and his signature was obtained. It is alleged that the trouser
i.e. the pant of Shri Pandey was also seized.
The next witness in this connection is P.W.15, Shri Sanjay
Kumar. He was a Law Officer of Central Bank of India. At the
relevant time, he was posted at Oriental Bank of Commerce,
Regional Office, Calcutta as a Law Officer. The Regional Manager
directed him to go to C.B.I. Office at Nizam Palace, Calcutta and he
went there and he was called at the S.P.’s Chamber. There he was
introduced by the C.B.I. Officers with one Mr.Sengupta and he was
told that a trap was being arranged at the International Airport at
Calcutta in respect of bribe being given to some Officer as he
demanded money from Shri Sengupta. He was explained as to how
the trap was to be laid. Currency notes were given and their numbers
were noted by the C.B.I. Officers. Thereafter, some chemical power
were put on the currency notes. He further deposed that he was told
that when this powder coated notes were touched by any person and
his hand is washed in water, the water would turn pink and a
demonstration was given there. Thereafter, he along with others
proceeded to the Calcutta Airport and they were instructed that Shri
Sengupta would hand over the money to the concerned officer in his
room and signal was to be given by touching the head by right hand
and that would signal that the money has been accepted. It is alleged
that he and Shri Sengupta thereafter entered into the room of Shri
Pandey and at that time a person was also standing there. It is
alleged that meanwhile that person left at that time. Shri Sengupta
had some conversation with Shri Pandey and thereafter, he handed
over the currency notes to Shri Pandey and Shri Pandey put the
money in his trouser pocket and then both of them came out. After
coming out of the room a signal was given by Shri Sengupta. All the
C.B.I. Officers standing in the corridor, then rushed to the Office of
Shri Pandey and trapped him by stating that he had taken the money
and he was asked to bring the same out which he first denied to have
received the currency notes and on much persuation all the currency
notes were brought out from his trouser pocket. The trouser pocket
of Shri Pandey was washed in a tap flowing water and the colour of
the water turned pink. The pink colour water was preserved in a
glass bottle by the C.B.I. Officers and the same was duly sealed. A
paper was pasted on the glass bottle and the signature obtained.
Currency notes were tallied with the numbers noted by the C.B.I.
Officers and the numbers tallied. The pant which was worn by the
D.G.M. was also seized and on seizure memo his signature was
obtained and that trouser was identified by this witness in the Court
and the same is marked as Mat. Ext.V. It is also deposed that the
currency notes, numbers of which were noted at the C.B.I. Office
tallied with the notes which were recovered and there was only one
mistake in respect of item No.10. It is also clarified that in the list of
the currency notes there is only a discrepancy with regard to one
currency note which is written as CA though it is actually CE but the
number of the notes tallied with the notes which were seized. It is
alleged that after the trap operation a trap memorandum was
prepared by the C.B.I. Officer and his signature was obtained. He
was also cross-examined at length and he was confronted that
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9
whether he was offered any entry pass for entering into the airport or
not. He admitted that he did not take any entry pass as he was
accompanied along with the C.B.I. Officials. He admitted that when
they entered into the chamber of the Deputy General Manager,
Airport, he was having conversation with some other person. But that
person left immediately after he entered the chamber. He also
admitted that after they came out they signaled to the C.B.I. Officials
that the money has been delivered The D.G.M., Shri Pandey also
came out of his chamber as he rushed to the chamber for
conference. He also deposed that after receipt of the money he
walked in the corridor before the C.B.I. Officers who were waiting in
the corridor and entered the conference room. He denied the
suggestion that no trouser was seized from the accused-respondent
at the time of trap. He was also put to lengthy cross-examination.
P.W.16-Manoranjan Singh Hazari is the Inspector, C.B.I. He
deposed that on written complaint he registered a case against Shri
K.Pandey and requisitioned two witnesses from the Oriental Bank of
Commerce, Regional Office at Calcutta and on his requisition these
two witnesses i.e. Shri R.K.Das and Shri Sanjay Kumar were called.
They were all explained about the trap procedure and the numbers of
currency notes which were given by Shri Sengupta, were also noted
and a list was prepared. The currency notes were put to
phenolphthalein powder. Then the trap memorandum was prepared.
All the currency notes were given to Shri Sengupta and they were
asked to deliver the currency notes to the accused. Thereafter, they
gave a signal that in fact the notes were handed to Shri Pandey. On
signal they went there and the currency notes were recovered and
the hands of accused-respondent were washed in the soda water
which was already missed with soda. The colour of the water turned
into pink and the said water was kept in a glass bottle. That bottle
was sealed and that was marked as Ext."B" and signatures of the
persons were obtained. Thereafter, the money was brought out and
seized from the left side pocket of the full pant worn by Shri Pandey.
The number of the said currency notes was compared with the
numbers noted in the pre-trap memo in presence of the witnesses.
Thereafter, a search cum seizure list was prepared, currency notes
were sealed, signature of the witnesses were also appended.
Subsequently, post trap memorandum was prepared. Thereafter, a
pyjama was arranged and the accused was asked to take out his
pant and pyjama was handed over to him. Thereafter, the full pant
was handed over and the pocket in which the trap money was kept
was washed in another bowl of water and accordingly, the colour of
the water also turned pink and the said bowl water was kept in
another bottle which was duly sealed and labelled. The trouser of the
accused was also seized. Thereafter, the three sealed bottles
containing pink colour solution to the C.F.S.L., Calcutta and their
report was received. After necessary formalities the challan was filed.
This is how the prosecution has substantiated its case with
reference to oral evidence as well as documentary evidence. The
Personal Assistant of the accused was also examined as P.W.5 i.e.
Debarta Munshi. He deposed that he was at the relevant time in his
chamber and came to know about the trap arranged against the
D.G.M. He had no occasion to go through the bills. He deposed that
it is not possible to state whether the bill of M/s. Rakshak Security
Services for the month of April, 1996 was attached with any
forwarding letter. He deposed that Shri Sengupta never came to him
to ascertain the position of his bills. He also supported that at the
time Shri Sengupta came, a representative of Singapore Airlines was
inside the chamber of D.G.M. He has also narrated about the incident
which has happened. P.W.6, Ambar Kr.Mondal was Deputy Manager
(Finance) Indian Airlines. P.W.7 is Mortyajit Pal, He has deposed that
he was Accounts Manager and the bills are presented by the
contractors. He deposed that the bills of M/s.Rakshak Security
Services i.e. of Shri Sengupta for the period from September, 1995
to March, 1996 were seized by the C.B.I. P.W.8 is A.G.II, F.C. at the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9
Airport Authority and he used to prepare the bills on the endorsement
of the Accounts Manager as per the Rules. He deposed that he did
not know Shri Shankar Prasad Sengupta as being one of the
contractors. He admitted that in the bill for the month of April, 1996,
Rs.1,03,316/- was claimed for labour charges while Rs.8,701/- was
claimed in respect of payment to the supervisors and he cannot say
whether in the wage sheet the disbursement of Rs.96, 822.85 p. was
done in total in respect of payment to labourers and supervisors He
deposed that the same needs arithmetical calculation and since the
said wage sheets do not contain in running total of each page, he
cannot say whether there is a fraudulent claim of Rs.15,194.15 P.
P.W.9 was the House Keeping staff of Airport. He deposed that
cleaning operation was being done under his supervision. P.W.10 is
the Additional General Manager (G.F.S.). He deposed that he was
the Vigilance Officer and he did not receive any complaint against
Shri Kailash Pandey. P.W.11 is the Assistant Law Manager of
Calcutta Airport. P.W.12 is U.R.Khaledkar, Senior Manager in the
Airport. P.W.13, is Prasun Kr.Mitra who was Inspector, C.B.I. He
deposed about the formalities done at the trap stage. He deposed
that he was summoned in the chambers of Shri R.K.Sarkar, the then
D.S.P., C.B.I.,and he came to know about the trap. He also narrated
about the handing of the currency notes by Shri Sengupta and the
said notes were coated with the phenolphthalein powder which turned
pink on wash, about the pre-trap and how the hands of the
witnesses were also washed and all other details which have already
been deposed by other witnesses.
Therefore, a survey of this evidence shows that a trap was laid
and how the currency notes were seized from the accused. On this
evidence, the trial court convicted the accused but the appellate court
i.e. the learned Single Judge reversed the finding for the reasons
mentioned above. We will examine each of the reasons given by
learned Single Judge of High Court to find out whether they are
substantial or not so as to render the prosecution story improbable.
The first reason given by Learned Single Judge was that no
signature of the accused was taken on the seizure list. It has been
stated by the prosecution witnesses i.e. by the Investigating Officers
that the accused refused to sign on the seizure list. No accused can
be forced to put his signature and the prosecution cannot force him
to append his signature on the seizure memo if he refused to sign.
Therefore, just because the accused did not append the signature on
the seizure memo that cannot be a ground to improbablise the
prosecution story. Similarly, another reason assigned by the learned
Single Judge was that the currency notes and pant of the accused
were not sent to F.S.L. for chemical examination. When the currency
notes which were mixed with the phenolphthalein powder were
handled by the accused the hands of the accused was washed in a
water bowl, the colour of the water turned pink. Likewise, the pant
pocket of the accused was also washed and the colour of the water
turned into pink and the hand and pant wash which was kept in
bottles were sent for chemical examination, that is sufficient to
connect the accused with the commission of the crime. Just because
the notes were not sent for F.S.L. examination, it cannot be a ground
to disbelieve the prosecution story. The pant of the accused was
produced and exhibited in the Court and the pant has been identified
by P.W.15, Sanjay Kumar as Ext.V. It is very strange that the pyjama
which was given to the accused to wear that was not required to be
seized or produced before the Court because the accused could not
be permitted to go naked without wearing anything since his pant was
already seized. Therefore, non-seizure of the pyjama is not fatal to
the prosecution. Another ground has been given that when the
money was allegedly received by the right hand of the accused, how
it was kept in the left hand pocket but hand wash was taken of the
right hand only. This is no reason to disbelieve the entire prosecution
story when a man accepts anything in the right hand in normal course
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9
of human conduct and if he has kept the money in the left hand
pocket the prosecution cannot be held responsible. The accused has
received the currency notes and the hand wash of the water turned
into pink and the left hand pocket of the trouser was also washed and
the colour of the water also turned into pink, therefore, putting these
two evidence together, there remains no doubt about the prosecution
case. It was submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the
bills of the complainant for the period in question have already been
passed and payments made. That may be so, but this is not a ground
to disbelieve the prosecution case. In fact, the objections were raised
& deductions were made in bills and money was being demanded
from Shri Sengupta so that his bills are not objected or delayed and
no deduction be made in future. The money was paid to the accused
for the safe passage of his bills. Therefore, nothing turns on this
ground that the bills were passed prior to the tendering of the money
to the accused. It was only meant to facilitate smooth release of the
money as per the bills. Therefore, it is not a ground to disbelieve the
prosecution story that the bills in question were passed prior to the
alleged tender of the money to the accused. Lastly, a very vague
ground has been given by learned Single Judge that the envelope
which contained the currency notes had not been produced. Nothing
turns on non-production of the envelope. What is material is the
acceptance of money by the accused which is more than apparent
from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the money was
recovered from the accused and the accused’s hand which accepted
the currency notes was washed and the hand wash turned in to pink
colour water and likewise the accused’s pant pocket which was
washed, the water also turned into pink. Therefore, from the chain of
circumstances, the prosecution story stands fully substantiated.
Learned counsel for the accused- respondent has tried to show
some minor discrepancy in the statement of the witnesses that
whether the money was handed over in presence of one
representative of Singapore Airline and he has not been produced.
P.W.5- Debarata Munshi (P.A.) says that he did not know whether
these persons met the accused in his chamber or not. It is alleged
that the bills were passed earlier and later on the trap was arranged
on the basis of the complaint by Shri Sengupta and the complainant
was inimically motivated. The complainant was interested in trapping
the accused. All these cosmetic contradictions cannot improbablise
the prosecution story. A similar attempt was made to highlight such
trifle contradiction in written submissions. The fact of the matter is
that the money was accepted by the accused from the complainant
and it was recovered by the Investigating Officer and the money was
paid primarily for an illegal purpose i.e. to facilitate the passing of the
bills of P.W.3, Shankar Prasad Sengupta and not to deduct amount
from the bills. Therefore, under these circumstances, we are of
not correct.
Our attention was also invited to the decisions of this Court in
the case of Som Parkash v. State of Punjab reported in 1992
Supp.(1) SCC 428; in the case of G.V.Nanjundiah v. State (Delhi
Admn.) reported in AIR 1987 SC 2402; in the case of State of U.P.
v. Jagdish Singh Malhotra reported in (2001) 10 SCC 215 and in the
case of State of Maharashtra v. Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla
reported in 1987 (Supp.) SCC 379. All these cases are
distinguishable on the facts as in all the cases some peculiar facts
were found which improbablises the case of the prosecution. But in
the present case, after examining the whole case we are convinced
that there was no improbabilities in the prosecution case. The
prosecution has led sufficient and cogent evidence to substantiate the
allegation against the accused but unfortunately the learned Single
Judge of the High Court took a very easy approach and picked a
small hole in the prosecution story so as to improbablise the same
which, in our opinion, was not correct. We are satisfied that
sufficient, cogent and reliable evidence is available on record which
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9
fully established the guilt of the accused.
It is needless to reiterate that the appellate court should be slow
in reappreciating the evidence. This Court time and again has
emphasized that the trial court which has the occasion to see the
demeanour of the witnesses and it is in a better position to appreciate
it, the appellate court should not lightly brush aside the appreciation
done by the trial court except for cogent reasons. In this connection,
a reference may be made to a decision of this Court in the case of
The State of Punjab v. Hari Singh & Anr. reported in AIR 1974 SC
1168, wherein Their Lordships have observed as follows:
"Supreme Court’s power of interference
under Article 136 with judgments of acquittal is
not exercised on principles which are different
from those adopted by it in dealing with
convictions. It is a principle, common to all
criminal appeals by special leave, that the
Supreme Court will refrain from substituting its
own views about the appreciation of evidence if
the judgment of the High Court is based on one
of two alternative views each of which was
reasonably open to the High Court to accept. If,
however, the High Court’s approach is vitiated
by some basically erroneous apparent
assumption or it adopts reasoning which, on the
face of it, is unsound, it may become the duty of
the Supreme Court, to prevent a miscarriage of
justice, to interfere with an order whether it be of
conviction or of acquittal."
Similarly, in the case of Khem Karan & Ors. v. The State of U.P. &
Anr. reported in AIR 1974 SC 1567 it was observed as follows:
" Further, neither mere possibilities nor remote
probabilities nor mere doubts which are not
reasonable can, without danger to the
administration of justice, be the foundation of the
acquittal of an accused person, if there is
otherwise fairly credible testimony. If a trial
court’s judgment verges on the perverse, the
appellate court has a duty to set the evaluation
right and pass a proper order."
Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani & Anr.
reported in (2003) 7 SCC 291, the appellate court reversed the
finding of the trial court without considering and taking into account
the testimony of eyewitnesses. Their Lordships after appreciation of
the evidence reversed the order of the High Court and maintained the
order of conviction of the trial court. Their Lordships observed that
notwithstanding the inconsistencies, exaggerations or
embellishments, the eyewitnesses account has to be accepted that
clinches the case of the prosecution.
In the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Jaspal Singh reported in
(2003) 10 SCC 586, Their Lordships reversed the order of acquittal
passed by the High Court and convicted the accused on the basis of
clinching, truthful and cogent evidence proving that a co-accused
was a party to the common design of other accused who stood
convicted by the court below and Their Lordships held that the
confession of the co-accused is satisfactorily corroborated by the
witnesses.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9
In view of the discussions made above, we allow this appeal
and set aside the judgment and order dated December 9,2002 of
learned Single Judge of the High Court passed in C.R.A. No.192 of
2000 and affirm the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.
The accused- respondent is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and
he is directed to surrender to serve out the sentence and in case, he
fails to surrender within one month from today, then it will be open to
the Superintendent, C.B.I. to arrest him and to send him to jail to
serve out the remaining part of the sentence.