PRAKASH CHAND v. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 161
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ss. 8, 27, 155
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ss. 5(1)(d), 5(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 162, 162(1)
- Constitution of India art. 136
Judgment
Judgment
33t A B PRAKASH CHAND v. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) November 20, 1978 [R. S. SARKARIA AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] Pn::Yen~ion Df Corn1ption Act-Uncorroborated testimony of trap wi•ess, whether suffecient foundation for canviction-E\·idence Act S. 8, cMUiHCt of accused confronted by police officer during investigation, admissibility-Whether excluded by s. 162 Cr. P.C. 1974. "' Prakash Chand an Overseer-Section Officer in the Delhi Development C Authority office, was charged under s. 5(1)(d) read withs. 5(2) of the Pre vention of Corruption Act ands. 161 IPC, for demanding and acccpti.g Rii. 30'/ bribe from the trap witness Ram Niwas Sharma, an architect, for permitting him to make some necessa.ry corrections in the building plans submittN by him to oomply with certain objections raised by the D.D.A.
On a repon by Shri Sharma, an Inspector of Anti-Corruption Establishment, accompaniod him to the D.D.A. office, with two panch witnesses and on receiving a pre-NTang:ed signal, entered the room and challenged the accused who woo stunned :ta.d. tcpt mum. Then three pre-marked ten rupees notes were found in the tie dealin: with Sharma's matter, the :file was found under the table and the accaied had his foot on it. The panch ,.,..itnesses did not fully support the prosecatio. cL'iC. They resiled from their earlier statements made in the course of iu.Telti&ation, wer'e treated as hostile by tb.e prosecution, and were disbelieved by tile Courts. The accused was duly tried, c.onvicted and sentenced, and the conTiction was upheld by the High Court E D It was contended that the Uncorroborated testimony of a trap witaess. was not sufficient to found the conviction, and also that the evidence relating to the conduct of the accused when challeuged by the police i~sptXtor, wli cx- cludctl by s.
162 Cr. P.C. 197-4 and was inadmissible in evidence. ' Dismissi•..ig the appeal, the Court HELD : ( 1) We are· unable to agree that no conviction can ever be baaed on the uncorroborated testimony of a "trap witness". Where the circum1tan1:es justify it, a court may refuse to act upon the uncorroborated testimony of a trap witness. On the other hand a court may well be justified in acting up:>n the uncorroborated testimony of a trap witness, if the court is satisfied from the facts and circumstooces of the case that the trap witness is a witae.u of truth. [334C-E]
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.