LexPRAKASH CHAND versus STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
33t A B PRAKASH CHAND v. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) November 20, 1978 [R. S. SARKARIA AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] Pn::Yen~ion Df Corn1ption Act-Uncorroborated testimony of trap wi•ess, "' whether suffecient foundation for canviction-E\·idence Act S. 8, cMUiHCt of accused confronted by police officer during investigation, admissibility-Whether excluded by s. 162 Cr. P.C. 1974. Prakash Chand an Overseer-Section Officer in the Delhi Development C Authority office, was charged under s. 5(1)(d) read withs. 5(2) of the Pre- vention of Corruption Act ands. 161 IPC, for demanding and acccpti.g Rii. 30'/- bribe from the trap witness Ram Niwas Sharma, an architect, for permitting him to make some necessa.ry corrections in the building plans submittN by him to oomply with certain objections raised by the D.D.A. On a repon by Shri Sharma, an Inspector of Anti-Corruption Establishment, accompaniod him to the D.D.A. office, with two panch witnesses and on receiving a pre-NTang:ed D signal, entered the room and challenged the accused who woo stunned :ta.d. tcpt mum. Then three pre-marked ten rupees notes were found in the tie dealin: with Sharma's matter, the :file was found under the table and the accaied had his foot on it. The panch ,.,..itnesses did not fully support the prosecatio. cL'iC. They resiled from their earlier statements made in the course of iu.Telti&ation, wer'e treated as hostile by tb.e prosecution, and were disbelieved by tile Courts. The accused was duly tried, c.onvicted and sentenced, and the conTiction was E upheld by the High Court It was contended that the Uncorroborated testimony of a trap witaess. was not sufficient to found the conviction, and also that the evidence relating to the conduct of the accused when challeuged by the police i~sptXtor, wli cx- cludctl by s. 162 Cr. P.C. 197-4 and was inadmissible in evidence. ..J..._. F G ' Dismissi•..ig the appeal, the Court HELD : ( 1) We are· unable to agree that no conviction can ever be baaed on the uncorroborated testimony of a "trap witness". Where the circum1tan1:es justify it, a court may refuse to act upon the uncorroborated testimony of a trap witness. On the other hand a court may well be justified in acting up:>n the uncorroborated testimony of a trap witness, if the court is satisfied from the facts and circumstooces of the case that the trap witness is a witae.u of truth. [334C-E] The State of Bihor v. Basawan Singh, AIR 1958 SC 500, and JJ11anuprasad Hariprasad Dave, & Anr. v. The S1:ite of Gujarat, AIR 1968 SC 1323, applied. Ram Prakash Arora v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 49g and TJarsl:t;n Lal v. The Delhi Adrninistration, AIR 1974 SC 218; diffcrea- H tiated. 2. The conduct of a person ag&inst whom an offence is alleged, is admi.ssiblc under s. 8 of the Evidence Act. What is excluded by s. 162 Cr. P.C. iJi the ' • > PRAKASH CHAND v. STATE (Chimzappa Reddy,!.) 331 Staten1ent fl]adc to a police officer in the course of investigativn and not the A evidence relating to :the conduct of an accused person (not amounting to a -st.itement) when confronted or questioned by a police officer, during the course of an ;nvestigation. [336G-H, 337 A] D. V. Narasimhan v. State, AIR 1969 A.P. 271, held inapplicable. Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Om Prakash, AIR 1972 SC 975 and Zwinglee Ariel v. State of M.P., AIR 1954 SC 15; reaffirmed. &o Shiv Bohadur Singh & Anr. v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 322 and State of Madras v. A. Vaidyanatha lyer, AIR 1958 SC 61, applied. B OUMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 193 ~ of 1974. c Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated ~ 1-3-1974 or the Delhi High Court in Criininal Appeal No. 119/72. Frank Anthony, N. S. Das Bahl and Shushil Kumar for the ~llant. E. C. Agarwala and R. M. Sachthey for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.-The appellant before us was convicted by the learned Special Judge, Delhi of an offence under Section 5 (1 )( d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sec- tion 161 Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprison- ment for a period of one year on each count. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. The conviction and sentence were con- firmed by the High Court and the appellant has come up in appeal by special leave. The prosecution case briefly was as follows : P.W.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.