KHILLI RAM versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 1136 · Decided: 30-10-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1136 
i 
i' -
KHILLIRAM 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
. October 30, 1984 
(D. A. DESAI AND RANGANAnI MISRA, JJ.J 
Constitution of India 1950, Article 136, Special leal'e to appeal-Appreciation 
of evidence-Not a jurisdictional bar-Where serious injustice would be done evi-
dence nuzy be looked into/Indian Penal Code 1860~ Section 161 &: Prevention of 
Corruption Act 1947, Sections S(l)(d) and 5(2) 
Offence under-trap arranged for giving bribe-Acceptance of gratijicatio11-
Evidence and proof.powder treatment process with regard lo currency notes-Not · 
/ollowed-Accusei whether entitled to be acquitted, 
Practice&: Procedure : Supreme Court-Special leave to appeal-Appre-
ciation of evidence-When arises .. 
The proseCutlon aJieged that PW 2 had given a First Jnformation Report 
of two offences but appropriate investigation was not being done and charae-
sheet wai not beina furnished to the Court. When PW. 2 contacted the AppeJlant 
-the Head Constable of the Police Station. he demanded money. PW. 2 there-
UPon informed the Anti-Corruption Department about the demand and the 
. Deputy Superintendent of Police agreed to Jay a trap. Details were fixed and the 
trap was laid. An amount of Rs. 50 was passed on as the bribe. Five currency 
notes each of Rs. 10 denomination with marked initials were made over to 
PW. 2 to be given as bribe to the accused. The prosecution further alleged that 
the accused came pursuant to the request and the money was passed on and the 
payment of bribe was duly dete~ed. 
I' 
The Special Judge accepted the prosecution case. convicted the Appellant 
, under section I '1 of the I0dian Penal Code as also section S(J)(d) and section 
5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947 and imposed a consolidated sen .. 
tence of two years' rigoroUS imPrisonment. The conviction and sentence were 
upheld in appeal by the Hiah Court. 
Allowin1 the Appeal, to this Court, 
HELD : t. The restriction on appreciation of evidence in an appeal by 
1peciaJ leave i1 a self.imposed one and is not a juri!:dictional bar. Whileordnai 
• 
• 
•• 
·.~ -
kinttI RAM v. RAJAStiIAN 
1137 
rily this Court would refrain from re-examining the evidence in a ca~e where 
serious injustice would be done if the evidedce is not looked into it would not 
be proper for the Court to shun attention by following the self-imposed restric-
tion. 
[1140 CJ 
Ram Prakash Arora v. State of Punjab, [1972] Crl. L. J. 1293 and State of 
Bihar v. Basawan Singh [1959] S.C.R. 195; referred to. 
In the instant case, certain important features have been overlooked both 
by the trial Court as also by the High Court. The two panch witnesses have not 
only turned hostile, but have disclosed facts which support the defence version 
of the incident. PW. 2, the decoy witness has stated facts which probabilise the 
defence stand. Even the literate Constable-PW. 7 who has not been declared 
hostile has supported the defence version. The place and the manner in which 
the bribe is said to .have been offered and received make the prosecution story 
totally opposed to ordinary human wnduct. [1139 H; 1140 A·Bl 
2. Sufficient material ha5 been brought out to merit inlerference. The 
evidence of 1he panchas is not available to support the prosecution case. There 
is discrepancy in many material aspects. The prosecution story is opposed to 
ordinary human conduct. The discrepancies go to the root of the matter and if 
properly noticed "ould lead any court to discard the prosecution version. With-
out powder treatment, for the absence of which no explanation has been advan-
ced the prosecution story becomes liable to be rejected. An overall assessment 
of the matter indicates that the story advanced by the prosecution is not true 
and the defence version seems to be n1ore probable. The conviction of the 
appe1lant ii therefore set aside and he is acqllitted. He is discharged from his 
bail bond. 
[1145 C-E] 
Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration), [1979] 2 S.C.R. 330 and 
K~shan Chand Mango/ v. State of Rajasthan [1982] 3 S.C.C. 466; referred to. 
3, The accused was, according to the prosecution eviden~, in full uni-
form. 
He had been called up to the bus stand which is a public place. There 
is evidence to show that there were many people moving around and the area 
was crowded. There is also evidence that the place where PW. 2 met the accused 
with the money was close to a hotel where people were standing. In such a sur-
rounding a police-man in uniform would ordin
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.