Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2271 of 2011

Phula Singh   …..Appellant  

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh                   ….. Respondent  

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.  

l. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment  

and  order  dated  24.8.2011/7.9.2011,  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  

Himachal  Pradesh  at  Shimla  in  Criminal  Appeal  No.358  of  2009  

reversing  the  judgment  and  order  dated  19.2.2009,  passed  by  Ld.  

Special Judge, Hamirpur in Corruption Case No.1 of 2008 acquitting  

the  appellant  from the  Charges  under  Sections  7  and 13(2)  of  the  

Prevention of  Corruption Act,  1988 (hereinafter  referred to  as  ‘the  

Act’).  The High Court has awarded the appellant sentence of one year

Page 2

RI and a  fine of  Rs.10,000/-  and in  default  of  payment  of  fine to  

undergo further RI for a period of six months.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are:

A. That on 20.6.2007, the appellant was working as Kanungo of  

the particular area and one Vakil Chand filed a complaint against the  

father of the complainant that he encroached upon the land thus, asked  

for demarcation.  The appellant investigated the matter and found that  

one and half kanals of the land of Vikil Chand had been encroached  

upon by the complainant’s father.

B. The complainant  raised  the  objection  about  this  demarcation  

and at that time the appellant met the complainant at village Kheri and  

demanded “Chai Pani” to cancel the demarcation report.  It was in  

view  thereof  that  the  complainant  contacted  the  appellant  on  

10.7.2007  on  his  mobile  and  the  appellant  demanded  the  bribe  of  

Rs.5,000/-  from  the  complainant.  The  complainant  Prabhat  Chand  

lodged an FIR with the Police Station of State Vigilance and Anti-

Corruption Department,  Hamirpur alleging demand of bribe by the  

appellant.

2

Page 3

C. The appellant informed the complainant that he would visit his  

residence and he should pay the said amount.  In the negotiation the  

deal was struck to the tune of Rs.1,000/-.  The appellant came to the  

residence of the complainant on 10.7.2007 and demanded the bribe. In  

view of the complaint already lodged by Prabhat Chand, the trap was  

laid and the appellant was arrested and after investigating the matter  

the chargesheet was filed which ultimately culminated into Corruption  

Case  No.1  of  2008  under  Sections  7  and  13(2)  of  the  Act.    

After conclusion of the trial by judgment and order dated 19.2.2009  

the Ld. Sessions Judge, Hamirpur acquitted the appellant of all the  

charges.

D. Aggrieved, the State of Himachal Pradesh filed an appeal which  

has been allowed vide impugned judgment and order.  

Hence, this appeal.

3. Shri D.K. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has  

submitted that demarcation had already been made and the report had  

been submitted before the Tahsildar, therefore, there was no occasion  

for the appellant to demand any amount.  As the complainant’s father  

had encroached upon the land of Vakil Chand to the tune of one and  

3

Page 4

half  kanals  and the appellant  had shown this  fact  in his report  the  

complainant was having the grudge against him.  Therefore, he has  

falsely been enroped.   The High Court failed to appreciate that there  

are different parameters to reverse the judgment of acquittal and in  

this respect failed to apply the law laid down by this Court in a catena  

of judgments.  There is no evidence of demand or acceptance of the  

bribe.  Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

4. Per  contra,  Ms.  Shikha  Bhardwaj,  learned  counsel  for  the  

respondent  has  opposed  the  appeal  contending  that  there  was  

sufficient material against the appellant on the basis of which the High  

Court  has rightly reversed the acquittal  though there was no direct  

evidence of demand of bribe.  The appellant visited the house of the  

complainant though there was no relationship between the two.  He  

removed his shirt and hanged in the house of the complainant though  

the money was recovered from the pocket of the pant.  After recovery  

when the hands of the appellant were washed, the same turned pink.  

Therefore, there was a duty cast upon the appellant to explain all the  

circumstances  while  his  statement  under  Section  313  Cr.P.C.  was  

being  recorded.   The  appellant  kept  mum  and  did  not  lead  any  

evidence  in  defence.   The  High  Court  was  justified  to  draw  the  

4

Page 5

adverse inference against  the appellant  in  view of the presumption  

enshrined under Section 20 of the Act. Hence, the appeal is liable to  

be dismissed.

5. We  have  considered  the  rival  submissions  made  by  learned  

counsel for the parties and perused the record.  

6. The admitted facts remain that the appellant had no relationship  

or acquaintance with the complainant whatsoever and the appellant  

failed to furnish any explanation about  his visit  and staying in the  

house of the complainant.   The appellant has not denied visit to the  

house of the complainant. More so, he did not furnish any explanation  

in respect of recovery of Rs.1,000/- from the pocket of his pant nor he  

could furnish any information as how his fingers turned pink on being  

washed, with sodium carbonate solution as the currency notes already  

found in pocket of his pant had been treated with phenolphthalein. On  

being washed, part of his pant also turned pink.  

Even in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant  

answered every question saying “I do not know” or “it is incorrect”  

but when he was asked as to whether he wanted to say anything else,  

he answered as under:-

5

Page 6

“I  am innocent  and Prabhat  Chand had lodged a  false  case against him, because he had encroached the land of  Shri Vakil Chand as per his demarcation”.

7. We do not find any force in the submission advanced by Shri  

D.K. Garg that it is the prosecution which has to establish each and  

every fact and the accused has a right only to maintain silence.

8. The  accused  has  a  duty  to  furnish  an  explanation  in  his  

statement  under  Section  313  Cr.P.C.  regarding  any  incriminating  

material that has been produced against him. If the accused has been  

given the freedom to remain silent during the investigation as well as  

before the court, then the accused may choose to maintain silence or  

even remain in complete denial when his statement under Section 313  

Cr.P.C. is being recorded. However, in such an event, the court would  

be  entitled  to  draw an  inference,  including  such  adverse  inference  

against the accused as may be permissible in accordance with law.  

(Vide:  Ramnaresh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2012 SC  

1357; Munish Mubar v. State of Haryana, AIR 2013 SC 912; and  

Raj Kumar Singh  alias Raju @ Batya v. State of Rajasthan, AIR  

2013 SC 3150).  

6

Page 7

9. In  the  instant  case,  we  fail  to  understand  as  under  what  

circumstances  the  appellant  could  maintain  complete  silence  

particularly, in view of the fact that he did not deny his visit to the  

house of the complainant or that his shirt was found hanging on the  

peg in the wall and that his hands turned pink on being washed with  

sodium carbonate water.  We do not find any force in the submission  

advanced by Shri D.K. Garg that it was not a fit case where the High  

Court ought to have reversed the well reasoned judgment of acquittal  

as it was based on evidence on record.   

10. We  are  fully  aware  of  limitations  of  the  appellate  court  to  

interfere with an order of acquittal. In exceptional cases where there  

are compelling circumstances and the judgment under appeal is found  

to  be  perverse,  the  appellate  court  can  interfere  with  the  order  of  

acquittal. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of  

innocence of the accused and further that the trial Court's  acquittal  

bolsters the presumption of his innocence.  Interference in a routine  

manner where the other view is possible should be avoided, unless  

there are good reasons for interference.

7

Page 8

11. In the instant case, there is no perversity in the judgment of the  

High Court  as  it  cannot be said that  the judgment is not  based on  

evidence  or  the  evidence  on  record  has  not  properly  been  re-

appreciated by the appellate court, which may warrant interference by  

this court.  

12. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant has  

been  enlarged  on  bail.  The  bail  bonds  are  cancelled.   He  must  

surrender before the  Ld. Special  Judge,  Hamirpur,  Shimla within a  

period of four weeks,  failing which the said Court shall  secure his  

presence  and  send  him  to  jail  to  serve  the  remaining  part  of  the  

sentence.  

A copy of the judgment be sent to the aforesaid learned Court  

for information and compliance.  

     ..…………………….J.       (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN)

     ..………………………J.      (J. CHELAMESWAR)

New Delhi March 3, 2014.

8