Full Judgment Text
Crl.A. 156 of 2004
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 156 OF 2008
PARSHURAM JHA ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. This appeal by the accused is directed against the
concurrent findings of conviction and sentence recorded by
the Special Judge as well as the High Court convicting the
appellant under Sections 161 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(ii)of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947 with a sentence of one year rigorous
imprisonment under Section 161 and rigorous imprisonment
for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of
payment of fine to undergo a further period of one year
rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 5(1)(d)
read with Section 5(ii), both the sentences to run
concurrently.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at
great length and gone through the judgments of the trial
court as well as the High court as also the evidence.
3. We find that the prosecution story is supported by
Crl.A. 156 of 2004
2
the complainant Lalan Sahu and also the shadow witness P.W.
6 as well as the Investigating Officer – P.W. 9. We also
see that circumstantial evidence with regard to the
phenolphthalein test also supports the prosecution story.
4. Ms. Bindu K. Nair, the learned counsel for the
appellant has, however, argued that the case against the
accused appellant had been foisted on him by Lalan Sahu as
he bore animosity towards him and as evidence of this fact,
a report had also been lodged with the police by the
appellant (Exhibit B) one week before the incident
apprehending implication in some case. She has also
pointed out that from a perusal of evidence of P.W. 6, the
shadow witness, it was clear that he had not heard the
conversation between the complainant and the appellant nor
had he seen the money being handed over or recovered from
him on the day in question.
5. It is true that a complaint Exhibit B had been filed
by the appellant in the police station apprehending harm at
the instance of Lalan Sahu. However, in the face of
evidence already referred to above and the fact that P.W. 9
the Investigating Officer had no animosity against the
appellant, we are of the opinion that the factum of the
complaint having been filed loses all significance. We
th
also notice that in his examination in chief on 19
January, 1994, P.W. - 6, he had completely supported the
Crl.A. 156 of 2004
3
prosecution story but when he was recalled for cross
th
examination on 12 April, 1994, he deviated from his
initial statements obviously with the intention of helping
the appellant. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no
benefit can be drawn by the appellant notwithstanding the
fact that P.W. 6 was not declared hostile.
6. Ms. Nair has then argued that the incident happened
in the year 1985 and as of now 25 years had elapsed since
that day. She has, accordingly, prayed that in the light
of the judgment of this Court in Bhagwan Das Keshwani &
Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (1974) 4 SCC 611, the delay in
the disposal of the matter and the fact that the appellant
was now fairly advanced in age being 65, and that he had
already undergone four months of the sentence, the sentence
should be reduced to that already undergone.
7. We also see from the record which is before us that
the appellant has undergone about four months of the
sentence. In the light of the above facts and in the light
of the cited judgment, we are of the opinion that the case
of the appellant would fall under the proviso to Section
5(2) of the Act. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal but
reduce the sentence to that already undergone.
........................J
Crl.A. 156 of 2004
4
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
........................J
[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]
NEW DELHI
SEPTEMBER 09, 2010.