http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: BHAGWAN SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF HARYANA

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/12/1975

BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BHAGWATI, P.N. UNTWALIA, N.L.

CITATION:  1976 AIR  202            1976 SCR  (2) 921  1976 SCC  (1) 389  CITATOR INFO :  R          1977 SC 170  (13)  R          1986 SC1769  (5)  RF         1991 SC1853  (6)

ACT:      Indian Penal Code-Section 161 & 165 A-Conviction under- No legal  bar based on the testimony of a "hostile witness", if corroborated by other reliable evidence-Cross examination u/s. 154 Evidence Act does not efface his evidence.

HEADNOTE:      "B" the  appellant/Head Constable  with a  view to help the accused  not only  to get  an acquittal but get back the seized coins approached "J" a constable who was in charge of an investigation  of a  case under  section  411  I.P.C.  to substitute the  J seized  gold coins with different markings offering a  bribe of  Rs. 1,000/-.  J reported the matter to the D.S.P.  concerned and as per the directions, the raiding party arrested ’B’ and the other accused in a hotel and also recovered from him the gold coins of different markings. The currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- in the hands of ’J’ offered by ’B’ were also recovered.      The Special  Judge convicted  ’B’ and  sentenced him to undergo R.I.  for one  year which was maintained by the High Court.      On appeal  by special  leave, the  appellant  contended that since  the prosecution  case rested  principally on the testimony of  ’J’, the  whole edifice  is destroyed  on that witness being declared ’hostile’.      Rejecting the contention and dismissing the appeal, the Court ^      HELD:  The   prosecution  could   have   even   avoided requesting for  permission to  cross examine the witness u/s 154  evidence   Act.  But  the  fact  that  the  court  gave permission to the prosecutor to cross examine him as what is described as  "hostile witness",  does not completely efface his evidence.  The evidence  remains admissible in the trial and there  is no  legal bar  to have  a conviction  upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence. [923D- E]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Criminal  Appeal  No. 201 of 1971      Appeal by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and  order dated the  10th March  1971 of  the Punjab  and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 1165 of 1969.      D. Mookerjee and R. L. Kohli for the appellant.      H. S. Marwah and R. N. Sachthey for respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      GOSWAMI, J.  This appeal  by special  leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana affirming the  conviction of  the  appellant  under  section 165A, Indian Penal Code.      The facts  briefly  are  that  the  appellant,  Bhagwan Singh, is  a C.I.D.  police constable and would be naturally familiar with  Head Constable,  Jagat Singh  (P.W. 1). Jagat Singh had  detected a  case under  section 411,  I.P.C.,  on April 25, 1968. In that case one 922 Rameshwar Dass of Ambala City was arrested by Jagat Singh at Murthal Bus  Stand after searching his person and recovering from him  20 gold  coins and  47 gold  bangles weighing  101 tolas. Rameshwar  Dass was  produced in  court on  April 27, 1968 and  was remanded to judicial custody till April 29. In order to  help Rameshwar  Dass, Om Parkash and Sulekh Chand, who were  co-accused with  the appellant  (since  acquitted) apparently took  the help of the appellant to approach Jagat Singh to  save Rameshwar  Dass from  the criminal  case. The appellant suggested  to Jagat Singh to substitute the seized gold coins by 20 other gold coins which he would be supplied with and if he would do that he would be paid Rs. 1000/- for this help  in the  criminal case.  When this was proposed to Jagat Singh,  the other  two accused were with him. At first Jagat Singh  refused to  accede to  this unusual request but later on asked him to see him at Dogra Hotel the same day at 5.30 P.M.      While Jagat  Singh gave  that hope to the appellant and the two  co-accused, the  former also immediately approached the Deputy  Superintendent of  Police, Gurbhaksh Singh (P.W. 6) and  informed him  about this matter. The D.S.P. recorded his statement  which is  marked as Ext. P-A. The D.S.P. sent for  the  Station  House  Officer  of  the  Police  Station, Sonepat, and  directed him  to go  to the  Dogra  Hotel  and arrange for the detection of the crime. Jagat Singh was also directed to  go to  the Hotel  and meet  the  appellant  and others as previously suggested by him. The D.S.P. along with the Sub-Inspector, Ram Singh (P.W. 4), waited in a shop near the Dogra Hotel and after the appellant had passed the money to Jagat Singh a signal, as arranged, was given on which the raiding party  rushed to the Hotel and found Jagat Singh and the appellant  sitting on a table facing each other. At that time currency  notes of  the value of Rs. 1000/- were in the hands of  Jagat Singh  and these were taken possession of by the police  and on  search of  the appellant  20 gold  coins having hook-marks were recovered from his pocket.      The above  story of  the prosecution  was sought  to be established by  the evidence of P.W. 1, Jagat Singh, P.W. 2, Ajit Singh,  P.W. 4,  Ram Singh, S.H.O., and P.W. 6, D.S.P., Gurbhaksh Singh.  One of  the witnesses of the raiding party was given  up as  being won  over by the appellant. Nathuram (P.W. 3),  proprietor of  the  Hotel,  also  did  not  fully support the prosecution case and was declared hostile by the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

prosecutor.      The Special  Judge, Rohtak, convicted the appellant and sentenced him  to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and acquitted  the other  two co-accused, as stated earlier. The High  Court on  appeal  maintained  the  conviction  and sentence. Hence this appeal by special leave.      We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and are unable  to find  any infirmity  in the conviction. It is clear that  the two co-accused being interested in Rameshwar Dass took the help of the appellant to influence Jagat Singh for substitution of the stolen exhibits 923 in order  that  the  case  under  section  411  IPC  against Rameshwar  Dass  would  absolutely  fail.  Jagat  Singh  was definitely approached  by  the  appellant  in  view  of  his belonging to  the same force and he attempted to bribe Jagat Singh by  paying Rs. 1000/- which must have been supplied by the two  co-accused interested in Rameshwar Dass to ruin the prosecution  case.   Once  the   stolen  gold   coins   were substituted, the  identity would  be lost  and  the  accused would be  entitled to acquittal and even the accused in that event might  be able  to claim the gold coins. The appellant thus attempted  to bribe Jagat Singh in order to show favour to Rameshwar Dass by accepting the bribe.      In this  case the Public Prosecutor obtained permission from the  court to  cross-examine P.W.  Jagat Singh since he did not  specifically refer  to the  two co-accused  in  his examination-in-chief. Mr.  Debabrata Mukherjee, on behalf of the appellant, submits that since the prosecution case rests principally upon  Jagat Singh’s testimony, the whole edifice is destroyed  on that witness being declared hostile and the appellant is entitled to an acquittal.      We have  carefully perused the evidence of Jagat Singh, who was  examined in  the trial  after more  than a  year of detection of  the case.  The  prosecution  could  have  even avoided  requesting  for  permission  to  cross-examine  the witness under  section 154 of the Evidence Act. But the fact that the  court gave  permission to  the Prosecutor to cross examine his own witness, thus characterising him as, what is described as  a hostile  witness, does not completely efface his evidence.  The evidence  remains admissible in the trial and there  is no  legal bar  to base  a conviction  upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence. We are satisfied in this case that the evidence of Jagat Singh, but for whose prompt assistance the case would not have seen the light of  day  and  whose  statement  had  immediately  been recorded by  the D.S.P.,  is  amply  corroborated  by  other evidence  mentioned  above  to  inspire  confidence  in  his testimony. Apart  from that the fact of recovery of the gold coins in the pocket of the appellant gave a seal of finality to the  truth of  the charge against the appellant. If Jagat Singh had accepted the bribe he would have been guilty under section 161  I.P.C. There  is, therefore,  clear abetment by the appellant  of the  offence under  section 161 I.P.C. and the ingredients  of  section  165A  I.P.C.  are  established against him.      There is  thus no  merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. S.R.                                       Appeal dismissed. 924