Blog

Case Title – Ram Dutt Tyagi vs. State Thr. C.B.I. AND Subhash Chand vs. C.B.I

Case No. – CRL.A 779/2002, CRL.A 796/2002 and CRL.M.A.  13709/2022

Date on – 15^th May, 2024

Quorum – Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri

 

Facts of the Case –

The case revolves around a complaint by Ram Rattan Sharma, who alleged that Sub-Inspector Subhash Chand demanded a bribe of Rs. 2,000 for the release of Ranjeet Singh, a taxi driver employed by Sharma, who had been arrested. A trap was set by the CBI, and Constable Ram Dutt Tyagi, allegedly sent by Subhash Chand, was caught accepting the bribe.

In the trial, the prosecution presented eight witnesses, but there were significant inconsistencies and contradictions in their testimonies. The complainant’s statements varied on key points such as the amount initially demanded and the sequence of events. Independent witnesses Varinder Singh Dagar and Jagdish Lal did not support the prosecution’s case fully and were declared hostile. Moreover, evidence such as DD No. 25A suggested that Ranjeet Singh was released on personal bond much earlier than alleged by the complainant.

The appeals assail the judgment of conviction of the appellants dated 30.09.2002 and the order on sentence dated 01.10.2002, where the appellants were convicted for offences under Section 120B IPC and Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). They were sentenced to four years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 500 each, with default sentences of three months’ imprisonment for non-payment of the fine, arising from FIR No. RC-45(A)/94-DLI.

 

Legal Provisions –

• Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of IPC, 1860
• Section 7 (public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
• Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) (criminal misconduct by a public servant) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Contentions of the Appellant –

The appellants argued that the prosecution’s case was unreliable due to these inconsistencies. They pointed out that the complainant’s testimony changed significantly, with new details emerging only during the trial, which were not part of the original complaint or the statements recorded under Section 161 of C.r.P.C, 1973. They also highlighted that key witnesses like Ranjeet Singh, Rajender Kumar, and Nanak Chand were not examined. Additionally, there was a suggestion of a vendetta by DSP S.K. Peshin against Subhash Chand, adding to the doubts about the fairness of the proceedings.

 

Contentions of the Respondent –

The respondent, represented by the CBI, argued that the prosecution had established the case against the appellants and that they failed to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act. They maintained that the conduct of the appellants, including Subhash Chand’s initial absconding and Tyagi’s threats to the complainant, supported the conviction.

 

Court Analysis and Judgement –

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi upon reviewing the evidence and the trial court records, found significant contradictions and uncorroborated statements that cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case. The complainant’s testimony was inconsistent with his initial complaint and statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, 1973. The failure to examine crucial witnesses and the role of DSP S.K. Peshin, who was not cited as a witness despite his involvement, further weakened the prosecution’s case. The court concluded that the prosecution did not prove the demand for a bribe beyond a reasonable doubt, as required under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Hence, the court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellants. Bail bonds and surety bonds were discharged, and the appeals, along with any pending applications, were disposed of.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed By- Anurag Das

Click here to view the judgement