Raj Bahadur Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand

2026 INSC 239 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1105 OF 2013

RAJ BAHADUR SINGH … APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND … RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.

1. The present criminal appeal is directed against the final

judgment and order dated 13.04.2012 passed by the High Court

of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2006. By

the impugned judgment and order High Court dismissed the

appeal filed by the appellant and sustained the order of

conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court to undergo R.I. Signature Not Verified

for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of Digitally signed by rashmi dhyani pant Date: 2026.03.13 16:47:58 IST Reason:

payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for 15 days under Section

1 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred

to as ‘P.C. Act’], and to undergo R.I. for two years and pay a fine

of Rs. 2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further

undergo S.I. for 30 days for the offence under Section 13(2) of

P.C. Act.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the accused appellant,

Raj Bahadur Singh [hereinafter referred to as

‘appellant/accused’], was serving as a Constable in the Excise

Department in District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand. The

complainant, Kashmir Singh (PW1) [hereinafter referred to as

‘complainant’], was allegedly involved in the business of

manufacturing contraband liquor and had been challenged by

the Excise party on three previous occasions. On fourth occasion

i.e. on 16.06.1990, during a raid on the complainant's village,

complicity of the complainant in the said crime was also noticed.

It is alleged that the complainant was asked to sign some papers

by the appellant and was threatened that if Rs 500/- of illegal

gratification was not given then Challan would be forwarded to

the competent Court. The appellant further claimed he had

2 already prepared a “temporary bail” bond for the complainant,

which would only be honored upon payment. Complainant feeling

constrained by persistent threats at the hands of appellant

agreed to pay Rs. 500/-.

3. However, on 18.06.1990 the complainant filed a complaint

with the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) who thereafter

marked an endorsement and ordered the Inspector to organise

the trap. Accordingly, a trap was organized at a restaurant in

Khatima and as a prelude to trap, complainant handed over five

currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/- each to Inspector

Mahender Pal Singh who tainted these currency notes with

“Phenolphthalein Powder” in the presence of 2 independent

witnesses. On 19.06.1990 around 11:00 a.m. trap party which

included police team along with 2 independent witnesses Sree

Jeet Singh/PW- 2 & Sree Bhagwan Singh went inside the

restaurant and in presence of complainant recovered five

currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/- from the appellant.

Appellant’s hands were then soaked in Sodium Carbonate

solution, which turned pinkish, confirming the presence of

phenolphthalein powder. Memo of action taken on the spot was

prepared and the appellant was taken into judicial custody.

3

4. It was in this background, the criminal machinery was set

into motion and an FIR Case No. 114 of 1990 was registered

under P.C. Act. Upon investigation, a chargesheet was submitted

vide case no 368 of 1990 under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d)

read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act. Special Session Trial No. 46 of

1991 was registered.

5. The Trial Court, vide its judgment and order dated

03.03.2006, convicted the appellant to undergo R.I. for one year

and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine,

to further undergo S.I. for 15 days under Section 7 of P.C. Act,

and to undergo R.I. for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-,

and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for 30

days for the offence under Section 13(2) of P.C. Act.

6. On appreciation of evidence on record, the High Court vide

its judgment dated 13.04.2012 dismissed the appeal, sustaining

the conviction.

7. Aggrieved by the said judgement of the High Court and the

Trial Court, the appellant is before us.

CONTENTIONS

8. The Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently

submitted that the complainant had a strong motive to implicate

4 appellant in the false case so that his business of contraband

liquor could flourish without disturbance. It was submitted that

the complainant did not indicate the date, time, and place as to

when appellant raised demand of Rs. 500/- as a gratification to

exonerate complainant from the crime. It was further contended

that there were material contradictions in the statements of PW 1

& PW 2 regarding the time of arrival of the accused at the

relevant spot where the gratification was offered and that the

witnesses were examined after a gap of 14 years. It was

contended that PW-2 was well acquainted with the complainant

and thus an interested witness whose testimony ought not to

have been relied upon. Additionally, it is submitted that the trap

was jointly organised by the complainant and the police in which

the appellant who is an honest constable was trapped. The

appellant further contended that he was not afforded an

opportunity to examine himself as a defence witness as per the

provisions of Section 21 of P.C. Act. It is submitted that

complaint is a result of personal enmity which complainant bears

against appellant accused. Lastly, it was argued that the tainted

currency notes were not produced before the Court.

5

9. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand

specifically contended that FIR was lodged on 19.06.1990. He

further submitted that sealed sample of solutions was sent to

Forensic Science Laboratory Agra for examination and the

Investigating Officer after completing investigation submitted

charge sheet against the accused appellant. It is also submitted

that the High Court had dismissed the appeal of the appellant

accused and sustained conviction. It is submitted that

complainant had clearly deposed that appellant accused had

demanded bribe from complainant and threatened to implicate

him in false case. The case of complainant was further supported

by PW 3 who in his cross-examination has stated that

complainant was present in his office on 18.06.1990 and

submitted application. It is argued that appellant accused had

sufficient opportunity to demand illegal gratification as appellant

was present in the raid proceedings which were conducted on

16.06.1990 at complainant’s village. It is also submitted that it

cannot be said that there are many contradictions in the

statements of PW-1 & PW-2 regarding the amount of bribe or that

the complaint was lodged out of personal enmity because

complainant has proved identity of currency notes which were

6 received by accused appellant and PW-2 who is an independent

witness has corroborated the entire chain of occurrence. Further,

in response to the contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant that the trap was allegedly jointly laid by the

complainant and the police, it is submitted that the complainant

merely approached the Vigilance Department with his grievance.

The complainant had no role whatsoever in the constitution or

selection of the trap party. The decision to take cognizance of the

complaint was taken independently and at the sole discretion of

the Vigilance Officer.

ANALYSIS

10. We have heard learned counsels for the respective parties at

length and perused the material placed on record.

11. In our considered opinion, the High Court committed no

error in upholding the judgment and order of the Trial Court and

thereby sustaining the conviction recorded by the Trial Court and

the sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Admittedly, the

prosecution case rest on the ocular evidence and the Trial Court

as well as the High Court dealt with the oral testimonies of two

material and important witnesses namely, Kashmir Singh-PW-1,

7 the complainant and Jeet Singh-PW-2, the independent witness

or the shadow witness.

12. Kashmir Singh-PW-1 in his detailed version stated before

the Court that he is indulged in the liquor trade. He also submits

before the Court that on earlier three occasions, he was booked

as an offender and was released on bail. He further deposed

before the Trial Court that on 16.06.1990, the Excise Department

raided several places in his village and caught contraband liquor.

His house was also raided but nothing was recovered from his

house. He was forced to sign certain documents and the accused

demanded an amount of Rs.500/- and threatened him that if he

fails to pay the amount, he will put the complainant-Kashmir

Singh behind bars in a false case. As the complainant was not

ready to comply with the demand of the accused, he approached

the police authorities. Then, he stated before the Court the

necessary detail about the action initiated by the authorities and

the steps taken by the authorities pursuant to lodgement of his

report.

13. Perusal of the deposition of this witness shows that he gave

a detailed description about the pre-trap steps taken by the

authorities, the details of the trap conducted by the authorities

8 and post-trap measures taken by the authorities. PW-1 was

subjected to cross-examination and he stood firm to his version.

Though an attempt was made to submit before this Court that

there are contradictions or omissions in the version of PW-1, we

are unable to find any such contradiction or omission so as to

make the version of this witness doubtful.

14. PW-2/Jeet Singh, the shadow witness supports the case of

prosecution, though an attempt was made to submit that PW-2 is

an interested witness.

15. Perusal of the testimony of this witness shows that PW-2 in

his deposition before the Court stated that the complainant-

Kashmir Singh is not his relative but person of his knowledge.

Now, merely on the statement that PW-2 had an acquaintance

with PW-1, one cannot jump to the conclusion that PW-2 was an

interested witness. To brand the witness as an interested

witness, the defence is required to bring specific material before

the Court showing the hostility of the particular witness.

16. The High Court in its judgment appreciated the evidence of

PW-1 and PW-2, as follows:

“8. Now, we have a glance upon prosecution evidence. PW1 Kashmir Singh has narrated the entire incidents in his chief examination righty from raiding of village including his house by accused appellant in suspicion of manufacturing of contraband liquor till acceptance of Rs. 500/- as gratification by accused. He has also proved the identity of currency notes, which were received

9 by Raj Bahadur Singh in his hands. He was nabbed by team of Vigilance Department, which was in close proximity of the place of occurrence. After the incidents, hands of Kashmir Singh and Raj Bahadur Singh were was`hed by simple water and the same became colourful. PW2 Jeet Singh is an independents witness who has corroborated the entire chain of occurrence in pith and substance leaving minor discrepancies, which are ignorable. PW3 Nand Kishor Tyagi was Inspector in Vigilance Department at the relevant time. He was also a witness of giving and taking of gratification and has proved all factual and legal aspects, in similar manner, as stated by the previous two fact witnesses. It is worthless to reproduce the statements of all the witnesses, at the stage of appeal when it has already been elaborately discussed in the judgment of trial Court. PW4 Daya Krishan Joshi, Head constable was simply a formal I witness, who noted down the First Information Report lodged by Kahsmir Singh and has proved the same. PW 5 Mohd. Vakil Khan was the Investigation officer, who has also proved the entire sequence of the investigation and submission of charge sheet in the case.”

17. An attempt was made to submit that the defence witness

namely, the owner of the restaurant is not supporting the case of

prosecution and as such the case of the prosecution is a doubtful

one. The High Court has dealt with this submission and assigned

justifiable reason to submit that the oral testimony of the

restaurant owner-defence witness cannot be accepted as against

the reliable version of PW-2. It may not be out of place to

reproduce the observations of the High Court, which are as

under:

“11. It has also been argued on behalf of the appellant that restaurant owner was not product by the prosecution in order to ratify the version of other witnesses while he has been produced as defence witness by the accused and he has altogether denied any occurrence of raid conducted by Anti-Corruption in his restaurant on the relevant date. This witness is not trustworthy at all because he is a local resident of town Khatima. He runs his restaurant there and accused

10 appellant also hails from the same town so naturally the court can discern that a small restaurant owner cannot incur wrath of his native person and that too of a Government servant Constable of excise Police, who has been linked with other Government servants, just to open door for all the troubles in running his small restaurant whereas complainant Kashmir Singh is residents of a village, far away from Khatima, so in all probabilities it is not possible for this small restaurant owner at Tehsil Khatima to depose the truth against accused before court in the above circumstances.”

18. Ld. counsel for the appellant also made an attempt to

submit before this Court that no opportunity was given to the

Appellant to examine himself as Defence Witness. This ground, in

our opinion, holds no water, in view of the observations of the

High Court and the same reads thus:-

“13. Accused has not examined himself as defence witness, as per the above provision of the Act in order to rebut the prosecution version and assert his plea that he has been falsely implicated by Kashmir Singh because Kashmir Singh was challenged by him for manufacturing of contraband liquor. The Act provides an opportunity to the accused to get himself examined in the open court on oath in order to reveal the truth but he has not dared to avail this opportunity.”

19. It may not be out of place to state here that the statement of

accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.

20. Ld. counsel for the Appellant submitted before this Court

that the currency notes in question were not produced before this

Court and such omission was fatal to the case of the prosecution

21. Though the submission of the learned counsel looks

attractive at the first blush, we are unable to accept the same for

the simple reason that this ground was never raised neither

11 before the Trial Court nor before the High Court. This ground is

not even raised as one of the grounds in the special leave petition

filed in this Court. This was orally raised by the ld. counsel before

this Court at the time of arguing the matter.

22. On the contrary, the perusal of the judgment of the Trial

Court as well as the High Court clearly shows that the

complainant along with the raiding party went to the restaurant.

The act of handing over the currency notes to the accused and

acceptance of the currency notes and thereafter, the hands and

the currency notes being exposed to water turned pink showing

the trace of phenolphthalein powder, is also recorded in the duly

drawn panchnama. Thus, we are unable to accept the submission

of ld. counsel for the appellant.

23. Learned counsel has also made an attempt to submit that

both the Courts failed to appreciate the defence raised by the

Appellant of the enmity of the complainant against the Appellant.

24. The perusal of the deposition of PW-1 clearly shows that he

has stated before the Court that he was indulged in liquor trade

and action was already initiated against him three times and he

was released on bail. As such, PW-1 was facing the prosecution

launched against him. Thus, we are not inclined with this

submission of the ld. counsel for the Appellant.

12

25. Thus, considering all abovementioned aspects, we are of the

opinion that the learned Trial Court as well as High Court on

appreciation of evidence, committed no error in holding the

appellant guilty for the offences committed under Section 7 and

Section 13(2) of P.C. Act. As such, the interference of this Court

insofar as conviction being recorded by the Trial Court and

upheld by the High Court is not warranted, but at the same time

considering the circumstances namely, the appellant was of the

age of approximately 40 years at the time of offence in question

and now, he is approximately 75 years of age; considering the

material, particularly, order of this Court dated 21.08.2012

whereby this Court refused the appellant exemption from

surrendering, the surrender certificate dated 15.10.2012 whereby

the appellant surrendered and subsequently, the order of this

Court dated 07.01.2013 whereby the bail was granted to the

appellant, the appellant was behind the bars for the period of

approximately 2 months and 24 days. Considering these facts,

we are of the opinion that the sentence awarded by the Trial

Court and upheld by the High Court can be modified to the

extent of minimum sentence for the said offences namely,

rigorous imprisonment of 6 months for the offence under Section

13 7 of P.C. Act and rigorous imprisonment of 1 year for the offence

under Section 13(2) of P.C. Act. Accordingly, sentence of the

appellant stands modified to rigorous imprisonment of 6 months

for the offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act and rigorous

imprisonment of 1 year for the offence under Section 13(2) of P.C.

Act.

26. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

........................................J. [PANKAJ MITHAL]

.........................................J. [PRASANNA B. VARALE]

NEW DELHI;

MARCH 13, 2026.

14