Hoshiar Singh v. State Of Punjab
!"#$%$$
! "#
& '(& ) *+* !
% & '
( ! ) $( *
& + ) , $( *
.
)! "#
/// +*#), "-.
(*
01 3 $
4
)
!
* 5
* 78)
!
*
)
) ! )
6
8
*
) $
! : ') 0
#
(
! :
<
= 4
)
#"
*
)
$
,
!
* !9"
' > $ . 9) , ?* 9* $( ) @:$
,
0
*
#"
<
* !
!
:$
=
)
*@
= :
$ *@
$ 9 #
)
@ 4
*
A9
)
3
44 ! 9
9 *
**
- $ :
@
A9
*
($
$
% 68
)
*
9#
$
*
B 68
68
*
* 6(8
( $ *
(*
*
($
" $9
$
3
($
$
$
$
9 9
)
< 1
-9
$
9 9
4 C +
#9
$)
**
9$
*
#9
$
*
,!
$
: *
*
9
$*
+
$ **
##
*
*
:
$ *@
$ 9 #
)
@
9@
$
* *@ (
$
$
: 5
$$
*
)
$
9
$
*
9
*
D
$
*D
($
$ *
:
$ :
**
*
0 *
**
$) 9
*
**
3 1 +/ 01 " ) * 12!# $%34,3.
," -.567#
%
38. The said principle has been followed in M. R. Purushotham v. State of Karnataka, 2014(11) SCALE 467. On an attentive and cautious reading of the aforesaid decisions it is noticeable that the court disbelieved the story of the prosecution as no other evidence was brought on record. In N. Narsinga Rao case the accused was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 7 read with Section 13(1)(d) & (2) of the Act. The court, as we have stated earlier, had referred to section 20(1) of the Act and opined that from the proven facts the court can legitimately draw a presumption that the delinquent officer had received and accepted money. As we notice, the authorities in B. Jayaraj (supra) and M.R.
Purushotam (supra) do not lay down as a proposition of law that when the complainant turns hostile and does not support the case of the prosecution, the prosecution cannot prove its case otherwise and the court cannot legitimately draw the presumption under Section 20 of the Act. Therefore the proposition, though industriously, presented by Mr. Jain that when Baj Singh, PW5, the complainant, had turned hostile the whole case of the prosecution would collapse is not acceptable and accordingly hereby rejected."
$
*
6#" 8 :
!E
##
$
(
%
! "###$%
&
=
*
!E> $ . 9 1( =
* !E5 !9"
') ,!
9 (
$
*@
$
$ *
$ :
:
*@
$ 9 #
@ 4 1 0 -*8 )*"))))#$%3 #")() ,*.95
% "8.
In this case, by the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 and also based on sodium carbonate solution and dipping the hands and pant pocket of the accused turning pink, the acceptance of the amount has been proved. The appellant-accused has not adduced any evidence to rebut the presumption. It is true that the burden which rests on the accused to rebut the presumption is not onerous as that cast on the prosecution to prove its case. Nevertheless, this burden cast upon the accused is to be discharged by bringing evidence which establishes with reasonable probability that the money was accepted by
C the accused other than as an illegal gratification. Mere explanation attempting to create doubt on the prosecution case may not be sufficient to rebut the presumption raised under Section 20 of the PC Act. The Courts below have not committed any error in raising statutory presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. The conviction of the appellant under Section 7 and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C Act is based upon proper appreciation of the evidence and we do not find any good ground warranting interference with the verdict of conviction." 3
(
:
$-
$
$-
$
(
9
9 - $
**
* * * $
* A9
$
(
@
$ )
:
*
:
$ C 1 +/01 ""8 )*, " - :-""";- .#$%$%,3. ," -.<34#
% FGiven the time gap of five to six years, minor contradictions on some details are bound to occur and are natural. The witnesses are not required to recollect and narrate the entire version with photographic memory notwithstanding the hiatus and passage of time. Picayune variations do not in any way negate and contradict the main and core incriminatory
evidence of the demand of bribe, reason why the bribe was demanded and the actual taking of the bribe that was paid, which are the ingredients of the offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, that as noticed above and hereinafter, have been proved and established beyond reasonable doubt...."
**
*
*@
$ *
(
* 9
;
"
' )
$
*
! : :
$
'
;
$ $
! : *
$
,E)
*
55
$ $ *
*
*
,E4$ ,E3 $
! : '
$ $
@ *
*
*
0
$
,E4)
* 9
@
D - $
@ : )
,E4
*
,E3
@
9
@
:
$
@ *
,E4 ,E3
(-
$
*
*
)
1( =
*
5
9
1( =
* $
*
*
"
0
9
1( =
*
*
!E > $ . 9
$
*-
@
*
*@
$
,!
*
*
2 9#
9 *
(
** 9
*
*
$ *
:% '
()
*
)
) ) ) ) )
) *
) )
+
&
5
A
$
*-)
9
(
9 " $9
(*
$
4
$9 =+*>
!"#$%$$) 9@
E
@< % <
E
#
% <