SAT PAL versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 11 · Decided: 29-09-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

/ 
• 
-
t 
A. 
11 
SAT PAL 
v. 
DELHI ADMINISTRATION 
September 29, 1975 
[P. N. BHAGWATI AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.] 
Evidence-Trap witnesses and witnesses with bad 
antecedents-Necessity 
jor corroboration by independent evidence. 
Evidence Act (1 of 1872) ss. 8 and 
154-'Hostile' 
witness-Weight of 
evidence of-Silence as conduct. 
Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898) s. 162-Statements recorded 
during investigation-Use of. 
The appellant, an Assistant Sub Inspector, attached to the railway station, 
was convicted under s. 5(2) read with s. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corrup-
tion Act, 1947, and s. 161, l.P.C. 
The evidence against him was that the 
arrested P.W. 1, took away Rs. 30/. from him and demanded an additional 
Rs. 70/- for releasing him. These facts were spoken to by P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 
and P.W. 8 who were the women companions of P.W. 1. The evidence regarding 
the payment of Rs. 70/- and its recovery was spoken to by P.W. 7, a friend of 
P.W. 1 who brought the money, and P.W. 9, the Inspector attached to the Anti-
·Corruption Police who set the trap for catching the appellant. Two items of cir-
cumstantial evidence on which the trial court relied were, (a) that P.W. 1 was 
found detained by the appellant at the Police Station; and (b) that the accused 
kept silent when P.W. 9· accused him of having taken a bribe. P.Ws. 3 and 4 
were the panch witnesses who were present at the time of the recovery of the 
tainted currency notes from the appellant. They turned 'hostile' to the prosecution 
but in cross-examination, supported the prosec.ution .regarding the silence of the 
appellant when accused of having taken the bribe. P.W. 3 fqrther supported the 
prosecution to ~he extent that the solution turned pink when the hands and the 
pocket of the pants of the appellant were dipped in it. 
The conviction of the appellant was confirmed by the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : ( 1) This Court ordinarily does not review the evidence and disturb 
concurrent findings of fact unless the findings are clearly unreasonable or vitiated 
by illegality or material irregularity of procedure or are otherwise contrary to 
the fundamental principles of natural justice and fair-play. In the present case, 
the trial court and ,the High Cour.t have not only. used the statements of certain 
witnesses in a manner which is improper or impermissible under the law, but 
also erred in accepting the testimony of interested witnesses without the caution 
and corroboration requisite in the peculiar circumstances of the case. [20B-D]. 
(2) There can be no general rule of universal application for weighing 
evidence. 
There is also no absolute rule that the evidence of an interested 
witness cannot be accepted without corroboration. 
But where the witnesses 
have poor moral fibre and have to their discredit many bad antecedents, ?nd 
have a motive to implicate the accused, as P.W. 1, 2, 7 and 8 have agamst 
the appellant, it would be hazardous to accept their testimony in the absence of 
corroboration; on crucial points fro)Il independent sources. '[22G-H]. 
R. P. Arora v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 498, referred to. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
(3) P.Ws. 1, 7 and 9 were concerned with the success of The trap laid for 
the appellant and as such were interested witnesses. 
Qualitatively, the evidence 
H 
of P. Ws. 1 and 7 was far inferior to the testimony of an ordinary interested witness. 
"They were pimps haunting the railway station to solicit customers for P.Ws. 
2 and 8. The accused was a police officer with an outstanding and unblemished 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
12 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 197 6] 2 S.C.R. 
record of 19 years service and was an obstacle to 
these 
witnesses in their 
act1v1t1es. lt could not, therefore, 
be said that they had no mo1ive 
to 
falsely implicate him. [200~G; 2ZA-B]. 
\ 
(4) The sum of Rs. 30/- which was alleged to have been taken away by 
the appellant from P.W. 1 was not recovered from the appellant or fron 
anywhere else in the police station. 
Further, according to P.W. 7, when. 
the balance of Rs. 70/- had been paid, the appeJlant did not aJlow P.W. 
1 .. 
., 
to go away. 
Ordinarily such discrepancies and small improbabilities are not 
of much consequence; but when the witnesses are m~nifestly disreputable. p:r-
sons, their testimony must pass the test of severe scrutmv and even nunor u1fir-
mities may assume importance. [220-G]. 
. 
(5) As regards P.W.9, though it has not b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.