Chattisgarh High Court
Hemant Singh Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 April, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by BHOLA
NATH KHATAI
Date:
2025.04.21
18:41:32 +0530
2025:CGHC:17965
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Reserved on 22.03.2025
Delivered on 21.04.2025
CRA No. 21 of 2014
Hemant Singh Thakur S/o Nagendra Singh Thakur, Aged About 50
Years, Occupation - Patwari (Suspended), Patwari Halka No.126,
Bhatgaon, Tahsil - Abhanpur, District Raipur (CG), R/o Village Mohndi,
Police Station and Tahsil - Abhanpur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge, Arakshi Kendra Anti
Corruption Bureau, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. A. S. Rajput, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
CAV JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374
(2) of CrPC calling in question the legality, validity and correctness
of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
19.12.2013 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988) cum 1st Additional Session Judge, Raipur, in Special Criminal
Case No.06/2006 whereby the appellant has been convicted and
2
sentenced as under:
Conviction Sentence
u/s 7 of PC Act, Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and fine of
Rs.5,000, in default of payment of fine, 4
1988
months additional R.I.
u/s 13(1)(d) read Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and fine of
with section 13(2) Rs.5,000, in default of payment of fine, 4
of PC Act, 1988 months additional R.I.
2. It is an undisputed fact that at the time of incident which is said to
have taken place in the month of September, 2005, appellant
Hemant Singh Thakur was a public servant posted as Patwari at
Patwari Halka No. 126, Abhanpur, Police Station and Tehsil –
Abhanpur, District-Raipur.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the land measuring 4 acres
58 decimals in Khasra number 1238 situated in village Bharenga
was registered in the name of the maternal grandmother of
complainant Santram (PW-1). After death of his maternal
grandmother, the said land was transferred in the name of
complainant’s mother Khorbaharin Bai. After death of Khorbaharin
Bai, complainant Santram, his brother Ram Sahai (PW-5) and
Bhabhi Brij Bai W/o late Bala Ram had a dispute with Guha Ram
Satnami over the land. The Tehsildar, Abhanpur passed an order in
favour of Guha Ram Satnami against which the complainant filed
an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raipur. The appeal of
the complainant was accepted on 06/08/2005 and an order was
passed to enter the name of complainant Santram in the revenue
records and a copy of which was sent to the Patwari/appellant
through proper channel. On 01/09/2005, complainant Santram
contacted Patwari/appellant Hemant Singh Thakur and requested
him for Namantran/Mutation (to register his name in the revenue
records), for which, the appellant demanded bribe of Rs.3,000 from
him. Earlier also, the appellant had taken bribe of Rs.10,000 from
3
the complainant on demand of another copy of revenue record.
Therefore, complainant Santram did not want to give him bribe
again. On 13/09/2005, the complainant went to the office of Anti
Corruption Bureau, Raipur and submitted a written complaint
(Exhibit P-1). The complainant (PW-1) was handed over a tape
recorder to record the conversation regarding demand of bribe. The
complainant recorded the conversation with the appellant and
presented it, the transcription of which was prepared as Exhibit P-4.
On the basis of written complaint Exhibit P-1, Dehati Nalsi Exhibit
P-2 was registered on 14/09/2005. Again on 14/09/2005, on
another complaint (Exhibit P-5) submitted by complainant Santram,
a trap team was formed under the supervision of Inspector A. S.
Gill (PW-13) posted in Anti Corruption Bureau Office, Raipur
comprising Inspector Anil Pathak (not examined), Inspector S.K.
Sen (PW-12), Head Constable Govind Ram (not examined),
Constable Alexander Ekka (not examined). Assistant Engineer of
Public Works Department, Bilaspur H. P. Verma (PW-7) and
Executive Engineer of Public Works Department J. P. Tigga (PW-9)
were also taken as independent witnesses. Complainant Santram
presented six notes of Rs.500 each, whose numbers were
recorded. A solution of phenolphthalein powder etc. was prepared.
The complainant was instructed to give a signal by patting his head
after the appellant had accepted the bribe amount. The trap team
along with the complainant and the witnesses left for the Tehsil
office, Aabhanpur. The complainant Santram (PW-1) was
accompanied by his son Narendra Bhatt (PW-6) as shadow witness
who went to the Tehsil office and saw the appellant present there.
The complainant went inside the Tehsil office where the appellant
demanded bribe from him. When he tried to give Rs.3,000/- which
he had already kept in the left pocket of his shirt, the appellant
came out of the office with him and started going towards the hotel
and demanded the money from him. Then complainant Santram
gave Rs.3,000/- which the appellant wrapped in a paper and kept
4
in the left pocket of his pant. As per the instruction, complainant
Santram gave signal by patting his head. Then the trap team as
well as the witnesses reached Tiwari Hotel and caught hold both
the hands of the appellant. Upon search, the bribe amount
wrapped in a paper was found in the left pocket of the pant worn by
the appellant. When the number recorded earlier was matched with
the number of the bribe amount, it was found to be correct. Then
Panchnama Exhibit P-8 was prepared. Constable Alexander Ekka
(not examined on account of his death) prepared the solution of
sodium carbonate. The colour of the fingers of all the members of
the trap team except complainant Santram did not change when
they dipped their hands in the sodium carbonate solution prepared
by Constable Alexander Ekka. When the appellant’s fingers were
dipped in the sodium carbonate solution, they became light pink.
When the bribe money and wrapping paper were dipped, the same
turned pink. The left pant pocket of the appellant also turned light
pink upon washing. All the solutions were sealed, the bribe amount
was wrapped in paper and dried and a Panchnama was prepared.
Kistbandi Khatauni B-1 etc. related to the land was seized. Spot
map was prepared by the concerned Patwari. The sealed solutions
were sent to the laboratory for chemical examination. Permission
for prosecution of the appellant was obtained and after completion
of instigation, charge-sheeted was filed against the appellant for
the aforesaid offence.
4. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence,
prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses in support of its
case. The statement of the appellant / accused was recorded under
Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances
appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the
prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. The
appellant has stated that a few days before 12/09/2005,
complainant Santram came to him and requested him to register
5
his name in the revenue record citing the order of the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Raipur. To which he said that he will register his
name when the departmental order comes, and will not do it on his
instructions. Due to which complainant Santram got angry and left
from there. Complainant Santram had given him the money telling
him to give it to his brother. In this way, he is innocent and has
been falsely implicated. However, the brother of appellant, Manoj
Thakur (DW-1), Patwari Makhanlal Banjare (DW-2) and retired
Revenue Inspector T. R. Vyas (DW-3) have been examined by the
appellant in his defence.
5. On the basis of the evidence and arguments presented by both the
parties, the Special Judge held that the work of entering the name
of complainant Santram Bhatt in the revenue record was pending
with the appellant till the complaint was made on 14/09/2005. The
appellant had demanded Rs.3,000/- from complainant Santram
(PW-1) other than legal remuneration for making entry in the
revenue record and committed the said offence by accepting bribe
from the complainant for that work. Hence, learned trial Court after
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record,
convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening
paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has
been preferred by the appellant questioning the legality, validity and
correctness of the impugned judgment.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that according to the
written complaint of complainant Santram (Exhibit P-1), bribe was
demanded from him on 01/09/2005, but the complainant has stated
that he lodged the complaint on 13/09/2005 i.e. after a delay of
about 12 days. No satisfactory explanation has been given for this
delay. That delay shows the ill-intention of complainant Santram.
Head constable Ghanshyam Mishra (PW-3) himself has not
registered any crime on that complaint. He has supported
complainant Santram. The written complaint Exhibit P-1 is also in
6
the handwriting of Ghanshyam Mishra who is not a reliable witness.
No Rojnamcha Sanha has been registered by him. The prosecution
has failed to examine the important witness Constable R.
Alexander Ekka who is said to be a shadow witness. He submits
that it has been clearly established from the statements of the
witnesses that before the alleged complaint, Namantran/mutation
had been done in the revenue records in favour of complainant
Santram on 12/09/2005. At the time of the alleged complaint, the
appellant had no pending work for mutation/Namantran. The
complaint regarding demand of bribe on 13/09/2005 is baseless.
According to Manoj Thakur (DW-1), complainant Santram used to
borrow money from him and return it. He further stated that 12-14
days prior to the alleged trap incident, complainant Santram had
borrowed Rs.4,000 from him which he had returned to the
appellant on the date of incident. Counsel of appellant further
submitted that the Panch witness of the complainant side J. P.
Tigga (PW-9) in paragraph-14, Investigating Officer A. S. Gill (PW-
13) in paragraph-25 and Manoj Thakur (Defense Witness-1) and
retired Revenue Inspector T. R. Vyas (Defense Witness-3) have
stated that at the time of the alleged trap proceedings, complainant
Santram had given money to the appellant asking him to give the
money to his brother. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove
beyond doubt that the appellant had demanded bribe from the
complainant for Namantran/mutation in the revenue record and
accepted Rs.3,000/- as bribe. Therefore, the impugned judgment of
conviction and sentence is not sustainable and deserves to be set
aside. He prayed for allowing the appeal by acquitting the appellant
of the said offence. Learned counsel for appellant has relied on the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of
Kerala and another v. C. P. Rao, (2011) 6 SCC 450 and Neeraj
Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731
in support of his argument.
7
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the
prosecution witnesses have fully supported the case of prosecution
and there is no reason to disbelieve them. The impugned judgment
is based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and the
prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt. The arguments raised by the counsel for
appellant in the appeal are not acceptable. Hence, the appeal
deserves to be dismissed.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record including the impugned judgment.
9. On behalf of the prosecution, complainant Santram (PW-1), his
brother Ram Sahay Bhatt (PW-5) and son Narendra Bhatt (PW-6)
who is a shadow witness, have been examined who have
confirmed the complaint and the entire proceedings. Head
constable Ghanshyam Mishra (PW-3) has stated that complainant
Santram had come to him to make a complaint which was
recorded vide Exhibit P-1. Inspector Jogendra Singh (PW-2) has
stated that pursuant to the written complaint, Dehati Nalishi and
First Information Report (PW-10) were registered against the
appellant. Patwari Vishwanath Sahu (PW-4) has stated that the
map of the place of incident of the Tehsil office, Abhanpur was
prepared vide Ex.P-9. Panch witnesses H. P. Verma (PW-7) and J.
P. Tigga (PW-9) have confirmed the trap proceedings. Arun Kumar
Mishra (PW-8), Assistant Category-II in Law and Legislative Affairs
Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, has proved the sanction
order of prosecution against the appellant vide Exhibit P-19. Sunil
Chandravanshi (PW-10), Assistant Category-III of Sub-Divisional
Office, Aabhanpur has presented the original service book of the
appellant (Exhibit P-21). Deputy Superintendent of Police R. S.
Dhruv (PW-11) has said that the seizure of revenue records related
to the Namantran/mutation was made vide Exhibit P-22. Inspector
S. K. Sen (PW-12) has stated that after the written complaint
8
(Exhibit P-1), A. S. Gill (PW-13) had given a micro tape recorder
with a new cassette to complainant Santram. The entire
investigation proceedings have been done by Inspector A. S. Gill
(PW-13) of Anti Corruption Bureau.
10. From the statements of the aforesaid witnesses and documentary
evidence, it is clear that complainant Santram has stated in the
written complaint Exhibit P-1 that the appellant had demanded a
bribe of Rs.3,000/- on 01/09/2005 but he made the written
complaint on 13/09/2005. No satisfactory explanation has come
from the prosecution for this delay of 12 days. It is also clear that
Constable Alexander Ekka, who prepared the solution of sodium
carbonate during trap proceedings, died and therefore, his
examination could not be done before the Court. The transcript
Exhibit P-4 has also been edited. Complainant Santram himself has
admitted in his examination that before depositing the said tape
recorder in the office, he had taken it to the shop at Abhanpur
where he played and listened and then presented it to the Police
Officers. As defence witness, retired revenue inspector T. R. Vyas
has stated that the judicial order is directly recorded in B-1 and
Khasra, whereas Namantran is done on the basis of the entry
made in the Register Sale Deed and Will (वसीयतनामा). He has also
stated that he was posted as a Revenue Inspector from 2004 to
2010 and recognizes the handwriting of the appellant. A photocopy
of the Kistbandi Khatauni B-1 of village Bharenga is attached in the
record, which is of the year 2000-01 and there is signature of the
appellant. On perusal of which it is clear that the record has been
corrected as per the order dated 06/08/2005 passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Raipur in Revenue Case No.131/2006 year
2003-04, on which the signature of the appellant is there as
Patwari.
11. The issue with regard to evidentiary value and credibility of the
9
recording in the cases of trap has been discussed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Rajesh Gupta v. State through
Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1107 and
it has been held as under:-
“12. On the issue of evidentiary value and credibility of
the recording in the cases of trap, the law is well- settled
in the case of Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh, 1985 Supp
SCC 611, wherein this Court held that tape-recorded
statement is admissible in evidence if the voice of the
speaker is identified by the maker of the record and
other persons recognizing his voice. In case, the maker
is unable to identify the voice, strict proof would be
required to determine whether or not, the said voice is of
alleged speaker. The accuracy of the tape-recorded
statement must be proved by the maker of the record by
satisfactory evidence, direct or circumstantial. The
possibility of tampering with, or erasure of any part of
the tape-recorded statement must be totally excluded.
The voice of the particular speaker must be clearly
audible and must not be lost or distorted by other
sounds or disturbances, otherwise, the transcript as
prepared, is inadmissible in evidence.
12. In the present case, H. P. Verma (PW-7), the witness of transcript
Ex.P-4, has admitted in his statement that the tape recorder
produced by the complainant (PW-1) was played and heard, but
the conversation was not recorded properly. Hence the things
recorded therein were not audible clearly, some words were clear
while some were not understandable. It is also noteworthy that in
transcript P-4, parts E to E have been cut after making some notes,
which shows that the voices in the cassette were not clear.
13. Complainant Santram (PW-1) has stated that he recorded his
conversation with the appellant in the tape recorder given to him by
the Anti Corruption Bureau, but in cross-examination he has also
admitted that he had gone to the shop in Abhanpur and listened to
that recording first. For this reason, the appellant side has stated
10
the said tape recorder to be suspicious and therefore, the transcript
as prepared, is not admissible in evidence. Thus, the transcript
(Ex.P-4) becomes doubtful by which the alleged demand is not
proved beyond doubt.
14. Hon’ble Supreme Court while discussing about the conviction under
Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) of PC Act, in (2009) 3 SCC 779 (C.M.
Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala) , held that
mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution
against the accused and observed as under:
“18. In Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1979) 4 SCC
725, this Court took the view that (at SCC p. 727, para 2)
mere recovery of tainted money divorced from the
circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to
convict the accused when the substantive evidence in
the case is not reliable. The mere recovery by itself
cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the
accused, in the absence of any evidence to prove
payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily
accepted the money knowing it to be bribe.”
15. In the case of N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu,(2021) 3
SCC 687, reiterating the judgment of C.M. Girish Babu (supra)
and B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55 , it was held by
the Supreme Court that it has to be proved beyond reasonable
doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be
bribe and observed as follows:
“26. It is equally well settled that mere recovery by itself
cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the
accused. Reference can be made to the judgments of
this Court in C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, (2009) 3 SCC 779
and in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55. In
the aforesaid judgments of this Court while considering
the case under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 it is reiterated that to
prove the charge, it has to be proved beyond reasonable
doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted money
knowing it to be bribe. Absence of proof of demand for
illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of
currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such
11offence. In the said judgments it is also held that even
the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be
drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal
gratification is proved. It is also fairly well settled that
initial presumption of innocence in the criminal
jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the
trial court.
27. The relevant paras 7, 8 and 9 of the case of B.
Jayaraj (supra) read as under:
“7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned,
it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal
gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence
and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute
the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond
all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily
accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above
position has been succinctly laid down in several
judgments of this Court. By way of illustration, reference
may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of
A.P., (2010) 15 SCC 1 and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI,
(2009) 3 SCC 779.
8. In the present case, the complainant did not support
the prosecution case insofar as demand by the accused
is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any
other witness, present at the time when the money was
allegedly handed over to the accused by the
complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any
demand made by the accused. When the complainant
himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial
complaint (Ext.P-11) before LW9, and there is no other
evidence to prove that the accused had made any
demand, the evidence of PW1 and the contents of Ext.
P-11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion
that the above material furnishes proof of the demand
allegedly made by the accused. We are, therefore,
inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the
High Court was not correct in holding the demand
alleged to be made by the accused as proved. The only
other material available is the recovery of the tainted
currency notes from the possession of the accused. In
fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself.
Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes
from the accused without proof of demand will not bring
home the offence under Section 7. The above also will
be conclusive insofar as the offence under Sections
13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) is concerned as in the absence of any
proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of
12
corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public
servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage cannot be held to be established.
9.Insofar as the presumption permissible to be drawn
under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such
presumption can only be inrespect of the offence under
Section 7 and not the offences under Sections 13(1)(d)(i)
and (ii) of the Act. In any event, it is only on proof of
acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can
be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such
gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do
any official act.Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification
can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same
is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the
basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20
can be drawn are wholly absent.”
16. Coming to the facts of the present case, in light of the aforesaid
principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court,
it is quite vivid from the evidence that according to the written
complaint (Exhibit P-1), the appellant had demanded bribe on
01/09/2005, but complainant Santram lodged the complaint on
13/09/2005, i.e. after 12 days, for which no satisfactory reason has
been offered.
17. As per the evidence presented and the discussion made by the
Special Judge in paragraphs 29 to 32 of its judgment, the Kistbandi
Khatauni B-1 of the concerned land was seized by the prosecution
from the record. According to which, the name of complainant
Santram (PW-1) had already been entered in the revenue record
even before the complaint was made by the complainant, which
has been confirmed by the then Revenue Inspector T. R. Vyas in
his statement as a defense witness and which could not be refuted.
The Special Judge has accepted that the entry made in the said
photocopy is not proved by the defence and on that basis reached
to the conclusion that the mutation/Namantaran of the complainant
was pending with the appellant on the date of complaint. However,
the photocopy of Kisbandi Khatauni presented by the prosecution
itself can be read in favour of the appellant. From which it is
13
concluded that the mutation/Namantran of complainant had been
done before the date of complaint and trap, that means no case of
mutation of the complainant was pending with the appellant on the
date of alleged trap.
18. Thus, apart from complainant Santram (PW-1) who has stated
about the demand of bribe, his brother Ram Sahay and son
Narendra are interested witnesses as they are close relatives. The
report was lodged with a delay of 12 days before which the name of
complainant Santram had already been recorded in the revenue
reocrd. The tape recorder is not proved beyond doubt, some voices
in it are not clear. In the above situation, the fact of the appellant
demanding bribe has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
19. As far as the seizure of Rs.3,000/- from the appellant under trap is
concerned, in this case, the appellant has stated under Section 313
of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the amount given to him by
complainant Santram was a refund of the loan amount given to the
complainant (PW-1) by his brother, Manoj Thakur (DW-1). This fact
is also confirmed from the statements of the brother of the
appellant Manoj Thakur (DW-1) and the then Revenue Inspector
T .R. Vyas (DW-3). In addition, the Panch witness J. P. Tigga (PW-
9) – Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, has also stated
at the end of paragraph 14 of his evidence that on the spot, the
appellant said that complainant Santram had given him the said
amount asking him to give it to his brother. Similarly, A. S. Gill (PW-
13), the Investigating Officer who made the trap team and seizure,
has also admitted in paragraph 25 of his cross-examination that
when the appellant was caught on the spot and the money was
taken out from his pocket, the appellant had stated that while giving
the money, complainant Santram (PW-1) had said to give the said
amount to his brother Manoj Thakur (DW-1).
20. Thus, not only the statements of defence witnesses but also the
14
statements of investigating officer Inspector A.S. Gill (PW-13) and
Panch witness J. P. Tigga (PW-9) support the defence of the
appellant that the amount given by complainant Santram to the
appellant was not bribe but the refund of the loan amount given by
the appellant’s brother Manoj to complainant Santram. In view of
the statements of prosecution witnesses J. P. Tigga (PW-9) and
Inspector A. S. Gill (PW-13), it is not proved beyond reasonable
doubt that the said amount of Rs.3,000/- was given by complainant
Santram to the appellant as bribe on demand of the appellant and
the appellant accepted it as bribe.
21. On the basis of the above discussion and in the light of the
aforesaid judgments, this Court finds that the case of prosecution
against the appellant is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The
conviction of the appellant Hemant Singh Thakur is not based on
clear, sufficient, reliable and valid evidence. In such a situation, the
“judgment in question” is not found to be sustainable and is liable to
be set aside.
22. Hence, the appeal is allowed. The “judgment in question” is set
aside and appellant Hemant Singh Thakur is acquitted of the said
charges giving benefit of doubt. Appellant Hemant Singh Thakur
is said to be on bail. His bail bond will remain effective for a period
of 6 months in view of section 437-A of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. The original record along with a copy of this
judgment be sent back to the trial Court forthwith for information
and necessary action, if any.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Khatai