GIRIJA PRASAD (DEAD) BY LRS v. STA TE OF MADHYA PRADESH

A that PW-4; the Divisional Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari, accompanied by .the appellant-accused, on a surprise visit to one Ayurvedic Chikisalaya, found that several members of the staff of the said chikitsalaya including the Ayurvedic Chikitsak himself(PW-1) were absent from duty. When Pw-1 approached PW-· 4 in order to explain his absence, the latter was said to have informed the former either to pay him Rs. 500/- through the accused or to suffer B suspension. PW-1 was said to have paid Rs. 300/- to the accused the same day and assured him to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 200/-on a particular day. PW-1 thereafter lodged a complaint in the office of the Lokayukt On the specified day, the trap was laid and the accused was caught with the currency notes which had already been treated with chemical powder. The accused denied C the prosecution case before the trial Court. Two panch witnesses were also treated 'hostile'. As regards the evidence of PW-1, the complainant and PW- 10, the Inspector of Special Police Establishment, the trial court observed that the same could not be relied upon as both were interested witnesses. However, on appeal by the State, the High Court_set aside the order of acqittal and convicted the accused of the charges and sentenced him to simple D imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- for offence u/s 161 lPC. Aggrieved, the accused filed the instant appeal. During the pendency of the appeal the accused died and his wife was allowed to prosecute the appeal under s. 394 Cr. P.C. .E It was contended for the appellant that since he was not in a position to oblige the complainant and the demand and acceptance was for and on behalf of PW-4, the trial Court rightly ot:iserved that the accused was merely made a 'scapegoat', and the High Court erred in disturbing the order of acquittal: and that the trial Court rightly discarded the evidence of PWs 1 and 10 holding them as interested witnesses. It was also submitted that the accused having F died, if conviction and sentence were set aside, the family members of deceased accused would be able to get the retrial benefits, Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. The High Court was wholly justified in setting aside acquittal G of the accused and in recording an order of conviction against him. Bo~h the Courts below recorded a positive finding that the accused accepted an amount of Rs. 200/- from PW-1, the complainant. Therefore, Section 4 of the Act got attracted and presumption came into play against accused. There was no rebuttal by the accused by leading any evidence whatsoever. The defence was H of 'total denial' and 'false involvement'. Hence, the doctrine of 'preponderance -- GIRIJA PRASAD (DEAD) BY LRS. v. STA TE OF MADHYA PRADESH 485 of probability' also had no application. It was also wholly immaterial whether A the said acceptance of amount by the accused was for himself or for someone else. Even if an accused accepts the amount for 'someone else', in view of$. 161 IPC ands. 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, he commits the offence. It was also immaterial whether the accused was or was not in a position to oblige the complainant by preventing or delaying his suspension. B [Para 16, 19, 22 and 30) [490-G-H; 491-D; 493-A; 496-GI

2.1. The trial court erred in discarding the evidence of PWs 1 and 10. on the ground that they were interest witnesses. It is well-settled that credibility of a witness has to be tested on· the touchstone of truthfulness and trustworthiness. No infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials C merely because they belong to police force. The rule of prudence may require more careful scrutiny of their evidence. But, if the Court is convinced that what was stated by a witness has a ring of truth, conviction can be based on such evidence. [Para 23 andd 24] (493-E-G) Aher Raja Khima v. State ofSaurashtra, AIR (1956) SC 217 and Tahir D v. State (Delhi), [1996) 3 SCC 338, relied on.

2.2. An appeal against acquittal is also an appeal under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and an appellate court has every power to reappreciate, review and reconsider the evidence as a whole before it It is, no doubt, true there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and E that presumption is reinforced by an order of acquittal recorded by the trial court, yet it is for the appellate court to keep in view the relevant principles of law, to reappreciate and reweigh the evidence as a whole and to come to its own conclusion on such evidence in consonance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. (Para 27] (494-E, F] F