Krishan Chander Vs. State of Delhi
Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 - Section 7 , Section 13 (1) , (2)
Concurrent Findings - Illegal gratification - Complainant-PW-2 turned hostile - PW-6-panch witness in his examination-in-chief has not deposed as to the exact conversation that took place between the appellant and the complainant at the time when he had approached him to give bribe money - He has simply mentioned about "some talk" had taken place between them but has failed to bring to light the factum of demand of bribe money by the appellant from the complainant - Held that panch witness not hear the conversation between the appellant and the complainant - There was no occasion for both the courts below to reach the conclusion that the appellant demanded any bribe from the complainant.
Illegal gratification - Appeal against conviction - Both the courts have relied upon the evidence of the prosecution on the aspect of demand of illegal gratification from the complainant-PW-2 by the appellant though there is no substantive evidence in this regard - Prosecution has failed to prove the factum of demand of bribe money made by the appellant from the complainantPW-2, which is the sine qua non for convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act - Impugned judgment and order of the High Court held to be not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law and therefore, liable to be set aside.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 145 , The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 161 , Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 - Section 7 , Section 13 (1) , (2)
Proof of Document - Illegal gratification - Investigation Officer-PW-10 in his evidence, has not at all spoken of the contents of the statement of the complainant PW-2, recorded by him under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C - Further, PW-2 in the light of the answers elicited from him in the cross-examination by Public Prosecutor, with regard to the contents of 161 statement which relevant portions are marked in his cross-examination and the said statements were denied by him, the prosecution was required to prove the said statements of the PW-2 through the Investigating Officer to show the fact that PW-2 in his evidence has given contrary statements to the Investigation Officer at the time of investigation and, therefore, his evidence in examination-inchief has no evidentiary value - Same could have been used by the prosecution after it had strictly complied with Section 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872 - I.O. should have spoken to the above statements of PW2 in his evidence to prove that he has contradicted in his earlier Section 161 statements in his evidence the same has not been done by the prosecution - Statements of PW-2 marked from Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in his cross- examination cannot be said to be proved in the case to place reliance upon his evidence to record the findings on the charge. - Contradiction of evidence of the complainantPW-2 does not prove the factum of demand of bribe by the appellant from the complainant as the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. put to him in his cross-examination was not proved by IO-PW-10 by speaking to those statements in his evidence - Evidence of PW-2 is not contradicted and proved his Section 161 statement in the case.
Topic(s)-Corruption - Concurrent Findings - Conviction by HC set aside