{"id":147797,"date":"1982-10-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1982-10-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishan-chand-mangal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-14-october-1982"},"modified":"2017-10-20T18:22:23","modified_gmt":"2017-10-20T12:52:23","slug":"kishan-chand-mangal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-14-october-1982","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishan-chand-mangal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-14-october-1982","title":{"rendered":"Kishan Chand Mangal vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 October, 1982"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kishan Chand Mangal vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 October, 1982<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1982 AIR 1511, \t\t 1983 SCR (1) 569<\/div>\n
Author: D Desai<\/div>\n
Bench: Desai, D.A.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKISHAN CHAND MANGAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF RAJASTHAN\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT14\/10\/1982\n\nBENCH:\nDESAI, D.A.\nBENCH:\nDESAI, D.A.\nSEN, A.P. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1982 AIR 1511\t\t  1983 SCR  (1) 569\n 1982 SCC  (3) 466\t  1982 SCALE  (2)879\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1985 SC  79\t (13)\n\n\nACT:\n     Evidence-Of persons  belonging to\toffice-wise, wealth-\nwise lower  strata of  society-Rejection on  sole ground  of\nhumble origin-Not justified.\n     Evidence-Witnesses\t independent  of  police  influence-\nEmployees of  nationalised banks  and institutions receiving\ngrants from government-Position of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The  appellant,   a  Factory   Inspector,\tvisited\t the\ncomplainant's factory  and demanded an illegal gratification\nof Rs.\t150\/- on  the threat of entangling him in some legal\nproceedings. The  complainant, who  was not inclined to give\nthe  bribe,   made  a\twritten\t complaint   to\t the  Deputy\nSuperintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Department (Dy SP)\nrequesting for\tsuitable action.  A  trap  was\tarranged  by\nsmearing 15  currency notes  of the denomination of Rs. 10\/-\neach with  phenolphthalein powder  and, on  the direction of\nthe Dy\tSP, two\t motbirs were  requested  to  accompany\t the\nraiding party  and to  watch what  happens. The motbirs went\nalong with the complainant to the residence of the appellant\nand witnessed  the acceptance  of the  money given to him by\nthe complainant,  the subsequent  search for the recovery of\nthe currency  notes from  the appellant,  the dipping of his\nhands in sodium carbonate solution and the consequent change\nin the colour of the hands into pink.\n     By the time the case came up for trial, the complainant\nwas dead. In the absence of the evidence of the complainant,\nthe trial  Judge noted that the first demand of the bribe at\nthe factory  of the  complainant had  not been\tproved.\t He,\nhowever, held  that the\t evidence of  the  two\tmotbirs\t was\nreliable and  was amply\t corroborated by the recovery of the\ncurrency notes\tas well\t as the\t presence of phenolphthalein\npowder on  the hands  of  the  appellant.  The\ttrial  Judge\nconvicted and  sentenced the  appellant under s. 161, I.P.C.\nand s.\t5(1)(d) read  with s.  5(2)  of\t the  Prevention  of\nCorruption Act, 1947.\n     The High  Court which  examined  the  evidence  of\t the\nmotbirs agreed with the findings recorded by the trial Court\nand dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.\n     One of the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant\nwas that  once the  complainant was  not available  to\tgive\nevidence not  only of  the first  demand  but  also  on\t the\npayment of bribe pursuant to the demand, the evidence of the\ntwo motbirs  had assumed  considerable importance and it was\nunwise and  dangerous to  place implicit  reliance on  their\ntestimony to convict the appellant\n570\nas (i) both the motbirs were petty clerks and (ii) by virtue\nof their  service, they\t were  likely  to  be  under  police\ninfluence.\n     Dismissing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD: Truth is neither the monopoly nor the preserve of\nthe affluent or of highly placed persons. In a country where\nrenunciation is worshipped and the grandeur and wild display\nof wealth frowned upon, it would be the travesty of truth if\npersons coming\tfrom humble  origin and belonging to office-\nwise,  wealth-wise   lower  strata  of\tsociety\t are  to  be\ndisbelieved or\trejected as unworthy of belief solely on the\nground of their humble position in society. [577-F]\n     Khairati Lal  v. The  State, (1965)  1 Delhi Law Times,\n362 overruled.\n     In the  instant case it is factually not correct to say\nthat both the motbirs are petty clerks: one was serving as a\nclerk in  a nationalised bank and the other was a teacher in\na middle school. The testimony of the motbirs which had been\naccepted as  wholly reliable by the trial Judge and the High\nCourt cannot  be rejected  on the  sole ground that they are\npetty clerks. [577-E: 578-A-B]\n     It may  be that  officers of Anti-Corruption Department\nhave jurisdiction  to investigate  lapses  on  the  part  of\nclerks in  nationalised banks.\tIt is  not clear whether the\nmotbir who  was a  teacher was\ta government employee or the\nschool itself  was a  government school.  It may be that the\nschool was  receiving grant  but if  all institutions  which\nreceive grant  from  government\t are  styled  as  government\ndepartments and\t have to  be treated  as falling  under\t the\npolice influence then the net will have to be spread so wide\nas not to exclude anyone as independent of police influence.\nThere is  no justification  in the  submission that  the two\nmotbirs were  persons not likely to be independent of police\ninfluence. [578-D-E]\n     Raghbir Singh  v. State  of Punjab,  AIR 1976  S.C. 91,\ndistinguished.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 45
\nof 1980
\n     From the  Judgment and  Order dated  the 17th  October,
\n1979 of\t the High Court of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Appeal
\nNo. 39 of 1977.\n<\/p>\n
     Frank Anthony and S.K. Jain, for the Appellant.
\n     Badri Dass Sharma for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     DESAI, J.\tAppellant Kishan  Chand Mangal was convicted
\nby  the\t  learned  Special  Judge  (A.C.D.  Cases),  Jaipur,
\nRajasthan, for
\n571<\/span>
\nhaving committed  offences under  section 161,\tIndian Penal
\nCode and section 5(1)(d) read with s. 5(2) of the Prevention
\nof  Corruption\tAct,  1947,  and  was  sentenced  to  suffer
\nrigorous imprisonment  for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.
\n200\/-, in  default to  suffer further  rigorous imprisonment
\nfor one\t month on  each count  with a further direction that
\nboth  the   sentences  will   run  concurrently.   After  an
\nunsuccessful appeal  to the  High Court of Rajasthan, he has
\npreferred this appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
     Appellant at  the relevant\t time was serving as Factory
\nInspector, Ajmer  and in that capacity he accompanied by his
\nfriend paid  a visit  on November  20, 1974,  to the factory
\nnamed ‘Krishna Industries’ whose proprietor was one Rajendra
\nDutt. Appellant\t said that  his visit being after a lapse of
\none and\t a half\t year, the  proprietor should pay him pocket
\nmoney. Rajendra\t Dutt replied that his establishment was not
\ncovered by  the Factories  Act and  showed disinclination to
\ngrease\tthe  palms  of\tthe  appellant.\t However,  appellant
\npersisted in his demand and told Rajendra Dutt if he did not
\npay Rs.\t 150\/- he  was likely  to be entangled in some legal
\nproceedings. So\t saying appellant  and his  companion  left.
\nRajendra Dutt  was not\tinclined to  give the bribe demanded
\nfrom him  and, therefore, on November 22, 1974, he contacted
\nDy. S.P.,  A.C.D., Ajmer,  P.W. 7, Mahavir Prasad and gave a
\nwritten complaint  Ext. P-12 complaining about the demand of
\nillegal gratification by the appellant requesting for taking
\nsuitable action\t in the matter. He also produced 15 currency
\nnotes each  of the  denomination of Rs.10\/-. P.W. 7 Dy. S.P.
\nMahavir Prasad\tdirected P.W. 3 Prahlad Narayan to bring two
\npersons to  witness the\t search and  accordingly P.W.  1 Ram
\nBabu and  P.W. 2  Keshar Mal  were  requested  to  join\t the
\nraiding party. 15 currency notes produced by the complainant
\nwere smeared with phenolphthalein powder and a memorandum of
\nthe same  was prepared.\t The raiding party led by P.W. 7 Dy.
\nS.P. Mahavir  Prasad and  including the complainant Rajendra
\nDutt, two  motbirs P.W.\t 1 Ram\tBabu and  P.W. 2 Keshar Mal,
\nP.W. 3\tPrahlad Narayan,  a clerk  in the Office of the Anti
\nCorruption Department,\tstarted by  a jeep  driven by P.W. 6
\nBajrang Singh  to go  to the  residence\t of  the  appellant.
\nOffice and  residence of  the appellant\t are situated in the
\nsame building. Complainant Rajendra Dutt and the two motbirs
\nRam Babu and Keshar Mal proceeded ahead and entered into the
\nroom used  as residential  portion of the building. Ram Babu
\nand Keshar  Mal stopped\t in the verandah and the complainant
\nRajendra Dutt  went inside.  Appellant was seen sitting on a
\ncot. On\t inquiry  by  complainant  Rajendra  Dutt  appellant
\nreplied that he was not well
\n572<\/span>
\nand that  he was suffering from cold Appellant then inquired
\nwhether complainant  Rajendra Dutt had brought the money and
\nthe complainant\t replied that  he had  brought the money and
\nhanded over  marked currency  notes 15 in number each of the
\ndemonination of\t Rs. 10\/-  which the  appellant accepted and
\nput the same under his pillow. Rajendra Dutt came out in the
\nverandah and as instructed, gave the agreed signal whereupon
\nDy. S.P.  Mahavir Prasad, the two motbirs and others entered
\nthe room. Mahavir Prasad introduced himself as Dy. S.P. ACD,
\nand asked the appellant whether he had accepted Rs. 150\/- as
\nand  by\t  way  of  bribe  from\tcomplainant  Rajendra  Dutt.
\nAppellant denied having accepted any bribe or any money from
\nRajendra Dutt  whereupon a  search of  his person was taken.
\nWhen the search of the person of the accused was being taken
\nmotbirs Ram  Babu and  Keshar Mal pointed towards the pillow
\nindicating that\t the bribe  taken by  the appellant was kept
\nunderneath the pillow. P.W. 6 Driver Bajrang Singh was asked
\nto lift the currency notes and the numbers were tallied with
\nthe memorandum\tprepared earlier.  Hands of the accused were
\ndipped in  the solution\t of sodium  carbonate  which  turned
\npink. After the memorandum was completed recording all these
\nfacts  and   after  completing\tinvestigation  sanction\t was
\nobtained  and\tthe  appellant\t was  prosecuted   for\t the
\naforementioned offences.\n<\/p>\n
     By the  time the  case came  up for  trial\t complainant
\nRajendra Dutt  was dead\t and his evidence was not available.
\nProsecution examined  the two  motbirs Ram  Babu and  Keshar
\nMal, Dy.  SP, ACD  Mahavir Prasad,  Clerk  Prahlad  Narayan,
\nDriver Bajrang Singh and two others.\n<\/p>\n
     Statement of  the accused\twas recorded under s. 313 of
\nthe Code  of Criminal  Procedure and he offered himself as a
\nwitness in  his defence.  In his  evidence he stated that on
\nthe date  of occurrence around 4.30 p.m. when he was sitting
\nin his cot complainant Rajendra Dutt came and took a seat in
\nthe chair  placed nearby. Appellant enquired why he had come
\nand whether  he had  brought any  written complaint  against
\nClerk Mr. Singhal. According to him, the complainant replied
\nthat action  be\t taken\tagainst\t Singhal  by  recording\t his
\nstatement  whereupon   the  appellant\tsaid  that   if\t the
\ncomplainant has\t any grievance he should come with a written
\ncomplaint. Appellant  further stated that thereafter he went
\nto the\tbath room for spitting cough and he came out and sat
\non the\tcot. Complainant  Rajendra Dutt\t enquired whether he
\ncan drink water from a jug which was lying there. Thereafter
\nRajendra Dutt went
\n573<\/span>
\nout of\tthe room  and soon  thereafter 8  persons  including
\nRajendra Dutt  entered the  room. He  stated that two of the
\nmembers of  the raiding\t party caught  his hands and when he
\ntried to get himself released from the grip of those persons
\nthe grip  tightened. One of the members of the raiding party
\nthen told him that he was Dy. SP, ACD, Ajmer and called upon
\nhim to\tproduce Rs.  150\/- he  had taken from Rajendra Dutt.
\nAppellant stated that he immediately told the Dy. SP that he
\nhad not\t accepted any money from Rajendra Dutt whereupon the
\nDy. SP\tcame near  him and put his hand in the pocket of the
\ngarment put  on by  the appellant. Appellant objected to any
\nsearch being  taken and\t insisted on keeping two respectable
\npersons present.  He further  stated that  Dy. SP quarrelled
\nwith him  and then he sent a telephone message to S.P, Ajmer
\nthat a\tFactory Inspector  has quarrelled  with him  and  he
\nshould be  provided with  extra police\thelp. Thereafter his
\nhands were  dipped in  a solution  but\tthe  colour  of\t the
\nsolution did  not change  and remained white. Appellant then
\ntold the  Dy. SP  that Rajendra\t Dutt had  come to  complain
\nagainst one  Singhal, a\t Clerk and  in support\tof  this  he
\nproduced Ext.  D-2 marked  collectively in  respect of\tfive
\nletters. At this stage the Dy. SP according to the appellant
\nasked  Rajendra\t Dutt  why  he\thad  given  a  false  signal
\nwhereupon the  complainant Rajendra  Dutt informed the Dy SP
\nthat the  bribe money  was lying  under the pillow whereupon
\nthe Dy\tSP removed  the pillow\tand collected  the  currency
\nnotes. He  further stated  that he has been involved in this
\nfalse case  at the  instance of K.C. Sogani, Factory Manager
\nof Krishna  Mills, Beawar.  This was  broadly the defence of
\nthe appellant as collected from his evidence.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned  special Judge\t noted\tthe  fact  that\t the
\ncomplainant Rajendra  Dutt was not available and, therefore,
\nthe first demand at the Factory of Rajendra Dutt on November
\n20, 1974,  has not  been proved. The learned Judge, however,
\nheld that  the evidence\t of two\t motbirs Ram Babu and Keshar
\nMal was\t reliable and was amply corroborated by the recovery
\nof currency notes as well as the presence of phenolphthalein
\npowder on  the hands  of  the  accused.\t The  learned  Judge
\nrejected the  defence version  that the\t currency notes were
\nplanted when  the appellant had gone into the bath room. The
\nlearned\t Judge\t accordingly  convicted\t and  sentenced\t the
\nappellant as mentioned hereinbefore.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant  having unsuccessfully  appealed  to\t the
\nRajasthan High\tCourt, has  filed  this\t appeal\t by  special
\nleave.\n<\/p>\n
574<\/span><\/p>\n
     Mr. Frank\tAnthony, learned  counsel for  the appellant
\ncontended that there are certain features of this case which
\nwould convincingly  show that the prosecution case cannot be
\naccepted. He enumerated the circumstances as: (i) absence of
\nname of\t the appellant in the F.I.R. Ext. P-12; (ii) absence
\nof evidence of demand as on November 20, 1974; (iii) absence
\nof any\tprior arrangement where and when the complainant was
\nto meet\t the appellant and, therefore, the trap could not be
\nsuccessfully arranged  which might  permit an inference that
\nthe whole  story of  acceptance of bribe money is concocted;\n<\/p>\n
(iv) further  two motbirs  P.W. 1 Ram Babu and P.W. 2 Keshar
\nMal were  petty clerks\tspecially selected by P.W. 3 Prahlad
\nNarayan; (v)  in their\tevidence they  have tried to improve
\nupon the  prosecution version  which shows their unconcealed
\ninterest in  the success of the trap which would render them
\npartisan witnesses;  (vi) there are certain omissions in the
\nevidence of  the prosecution  witnesses which  may  indicate
\nthat the defence version of planting the currency notes when
\nthe appellant  had gone\t to bath room is probabilised; (vii)
\nthat no\t inference be drawn from the fact that when hands of
\nthe appellant  were dipped  in the sodium carbonate solution
\nit turned  pink because admittedly when hands of the accused
\nwere caught  by the  members of the raiding party one or the
\nother of them may have transmitted phenolphthalein powder to
\nthe hands of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     Complainant Rajendra Dutt on whose complaint a trap was
\narranged was dead by the time the case came up for trial and
\nhis evidence  was not available to the prosecution. However,
\nthe complaint  Ext.  P-12  filed  by  him  was\tadmitted  in
\nevidence because  P.W. 7  Mahavir  Prasad,  the\t Dy  SP\t who
\nrecorded  the\tsame  gave  evidence  about  the  same.\t The
\naverments in  the complaint  even in the background of these
\nfacts would  not provide  substantive evidence\tand the only
\nuse to\twhich it  can be  put is  that a  complaint of\tthis
\nnature was  filed which\t tends\tto  explain  the  subsequent
\nactions taken by the Dy SP.\n<\/p>\n
     High Court\t has examined  the evidence  of two  motbirs
\nP.W. 1 Ram Babu and P.W. 2 Keshar Mal, and also the evidence
\nof P.W.\t 7 Mahavir  Prasad  and\t agreed\t with  the  findings
\nrecorded by  the  trial\t court.\t We  need  not\texamine\t the
\nevidence  afresh  but  limit  our  examination\tto  specific
\ncontentions raised by Mr. Anthony.\n<\/p>\n
     The first\tcontention is that the name of the appellant
\nKishan Chand Mangal is not to be found in Ext. P-12. That is
\ntrue, but
\n575<\/span>
\nwhat is\t stated in  Ext. P-12  is that\ta Factory  Inspector
\naccompanied  by\t his  friend  visited  the  factory  of\t the
\nappellant and  demanded a  bribe. Now,\tthe appellant in his
\nevidence as  DW 1  has stated that complainant Rajendra Dutt
\ndid come to his house on November 22, 1974, around 4.30 p.m.
\nAppellant further  proceeds to\tsay that  Rajendra Dutt\t had
\nsome  grievance\t  against  a  clerk  Singhal  and  appellant
\ninsisted upon  giving a written complaint at the time of the
\nvisit of Rajendra Dutt. If Rajendra Dutt as is now contended
\nwanted to  falsely implicate  the accused there is no reason
\nwhy he\twould not  mention the name of the appellant in Ext.
\nP-12. On  the contrary\tthe  absence  of  the  name  of\t the
\nappellant in  Ext. P-12\t would indicate\t that  probably\t the
\nappellant had  visited the  factory of Rajendra Dutt after a
\nlong time  and that  is what  transpires from Ext. P-12 that
\nthe visit  of the appellant was after a year and half. It is
\nreasonable to infer that Rajendra Dutt did not know the name
\nof the\tappellant but  knew him\t by the\t designation of\t his
\noffice as  Factory Inspector. Therefore, the absence of name
\nof Kishan  Chand Mangal\t in  Ext.  P-12\t is  hardly  of\t any
\nsignificance.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  next contended  that once\tRajendra Dutt is not
\navailable for evidence there is no evidence as to the demand
\nof bribe  on November  20, 1974,  and it  is not open to the
\nCourt to  spell out  the demand from the contents of Ext. P-\n<\/p>\n
12. It\tis undoubtedly\ttrue that  Rajendra  Dutt  was\tdead
\nbefore the  commencement of  trial. It\tis equally true that
\nthe F.I.R.  lodged by  him on  November 22,  1974, cannot be
\nused as\t substantive evidence nor the contents of the report
\ncan be said to furnish testimony against the appellant. Such
\nan F.I.R.  would not be covered by any of the clauses of ss.
\n32 and 33 of the Evidence Act and would not be admissible as
\nsubstantive evidence.  The question  still  remains  whether
\nthere is  any evidence\tof demand  of bribe  on November 20,
\n1974, in  this case.  A fact  may be proved either by direct
\ntestimony or by circumstantial evidence If appellant did not
\nvisit the Factory of Rajendra Dutt on November 20, 1974, and
\nmade no\t overtures demanding  the bribe,  on  what  rational
\nhypothesis can one explain the visit of Rajendra Dutt to the
\noffice of  Dy. SP,  ACD on  November 22, 1974, his producing
\ncurrency notes worth Rs. 150; a superior officer like the Dy
\nSP, ACD,  making all  arrangements  for\t the  trap  and\t the
\nraiding party  going to the house of the accused on November
\n22, 1974.  The visit  of Rajendra  Dutt soon followed by the
\nraiding party  at the  house of\t the accused on November 22,
\n1974, is  admitted. Coupled  with this, the fact that Keshar
\nMal, P.W.  2 in his evidence stated that after Rajendra Dutt
\nentered the  room in  which appellant  was sitting, Rajendra
\nDutt on
\n576<\/span>
\nentering the  room asked  the appellant,  ‘Hallo, how do you
\ndo’. He\t further stated\t that the  appellant replied,  ‘I am
\nsick and  suffering from  cold’. He  deposed that thereafter
\nthe appellant asked, ‘Have you brought the money’, whereupon
\ncomplainant Rajendra  Dutt replied,  Yes, I have brought the
\nmoney’. He further stated that thereafter Rajendra Dutt took
\nout the amount of currency notes from his diary and gave the
\nsame to\t the appellant who took the amount and kept it under
\nthe pillow  on the  cot. If  there was\tno prior  demand the
\nsubsequent events  remain unexplained  as also the demand as
\ndeposed to  by P.W. 2 Keshar Mal. But Mr. Anthony urged that
\nthis part  of the  evidence of Keshar Mal cannot be accepted
\nbecause he  has\t not  stated  this  fact  in  his  statement
\nrecorded in  the course\t of investigation. Simultaneously it
\nwas pointed  out that  the other  motbir Ram Babu is totally
\nsilent in  his evidence\t about this conversation between the
\nappellant and  the complainant. Undoubtedly, the omission in
\nthe police  statement of  Keshar Mal  and non-mentioning all
\nthese facts  by the  co-motbir would raise some doubt in the
\nmind of the court about this conversation but as pointed out
\nearlier there  are tell-tale circumstances which do indicate
\nthat there  must have  been a  demand and,  therefore, these
\ncircumstances as  herein before\t set out will render support
\nto the\tstatement of  Keshar Mal that the demand at the time
\nof visit of Rajendra Dutt must be pursuant to earlier demand
\nby the\tappellant. Therefore,  it is  not proper to say that
\nthere is  no evidence  of the demand of bribe as on November
\n20, 1974.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  next contended  that if a bribe is demanded and
\nagreed to  be paid  and if the complainant was contemplating
\nnot to\tpay the\t bribe but was thinking of initiating action
\nagainst the  officer demanding\tthe bribe, obviously for the
\nsuccess of  the trap  to be  arranged the  time and place of
\nmeeting would  be arranged  and if  it be  so  it  would  be
\nmentioned in the F.I.R. It was said that the very absence of
\nit would  show that  there was neither a demand of bribe nor
\nany action  was contemplated on November 20, 1974, as is now
\nsought to  be made  out and, therefore, the court should not
\naccept any  evidence with regard to the trap. In view of the
\nadmission of  the appellant  in his  evidence that  Rajendra
\nDutt followed by a raiding party came to his house also used
\nas residence-cum-office\t around 4.30  p.m. on  November\t 22,
\n1974, omission to mention about the time and place of future
\nmeeting in  the F.I.R.\tExt. P-12 loses all significance. It
\nis equally  possible that on the very day when the appellant
\nvisited the  factory of\t Rajendra Dutt\tand demanded  bribe,
\nRajendra Dutt may
\n577<\/span>
\nnot have  immediately planned to rush to the Anti Corruption
\nDepartment. He\thad declined  to give the bribe. In his view
\nhis factory  was not covered by the Factories Act. These are
\nthe averments  in Ext.\tP-12. They are not being relied upon
\nas substantive\tevidence but are used to explain the conduct
\nof Rajendra  Dutt which\t has evidentiary  value. If Rajendra
\nDutt did not negotiate giving the bribe and did not agree to
\ngive the  bribe though the appellant persisted in the demand
\nand threatened to involve him in court cases the question of
\nany arrangement\t for any time and place for giving the bribe
\ndoes not  arise and  obviously it  could not  have found its
\nplace in  the F.I.R.  Such things  find mention\t in a F.I.R.
\nonly when  the victim  agrees to  grease the  palms  of\t the
\nofficer. Absence  in such  a situation\tof such averments in
\nExt. P-12 in this case is both natural and obvious.\n<\/p>\n
     The next  contention is  that once Rajendra Dutt is not
\navailable to  give evidence not only of the first demand but
\nalso the  payment of  bribe  pursuant  to  the\tdemand,\t the
\nevidence of  two motbirs assumes considerable importance. It
\nwas urged that both the motbirs are some petty clerks and it
\nwould  be  both\t unwise\t and  dangerous\t to  place  implicit
\nreliance  on  their  testimony\tto  convict  the  Government
\nservant. Factually  it is  not correct\tto say that both the
\nmotbirs are petty clerks. Ram Babu was serving as a clerk in
\nthe Central  Bank of  India and\t Keshar Mal was serving as a
\nteacher in  Middle  School  at\tthe  relevant  time.  It  is
\nunfortunate that thirty five years after independence and in
\nthis age  of common  man, there\t is still not the eclipse of
\nthe high  brow. Sanctity  of word  made dependent  upon\t the
\noffice held  or wealth\tacquired is a nauseating phenomenon.
\nTruth is  neither the  monopoly\t nor  the  preserve  of\t the
\naffluent or  of highly\tplaced persons.\t In a  country where
\nrenunciation is worshipped and the grandeur and wild display
\nof wealth frowned upon, it would be the travesty of truth if
\npersons\t coming\t  from\thumble\t origin\t and   belonging  to
\nofficewise, wealthwise\tlower strata  of society  are to  be
\ndisbelieved or\trejected as unworthy of belief solely on the
\nground of  their humble\t position in  society. The  converse
\nunfortunately appears  to be true. The submission was sought
\nto be  buttressed  by  reference  to  Khairati\tLal  v.\t The
\nState(1). A  learned single judge of the High Court rejected
\nthe testimony  in that case of P.W. 2 Brij Nandan and P.W. 3
\nKrishan Kumar  observing that  they  are  petty\t clerks\t and
\ncannot be styled as independent witnesses. We have moved far
\naway in seventeen years and this
\n578<\/span>
\napproach does  not commend to us. We say no more. Therefore,
\nwithout further\t discussing  this  aspect,  we\tare  utterly
\ndisinclined to\treject the  testimony  of  the\ttwo  motbirs
\naccepted as wholly reliable by the learned Special Judge and
\nthe High Court on the sole ground that they are petty clerks
\nas  if\t that  by  itself  is  sufficient  to  reject  their
\ntestimony. That is a wholly irrelevant consideration.\n<\/p>\n
     As a  second string  to the  bow it  was urged that Ram
\nBabu was  serving at  the relevant  time as  a Clerk  in the
\nCentral Bank  of India\tand Keshar  Mal was a teacher in the
\nmiddle school  at Ajmer and both of them were, therefore, by
\nvirtue of  their service,  likely to  be  under\t the  police
\ninfluence. It  is difficult  to appreciate  this contention.
\nUndoubtedly Ram\t Babu was a Clerk in a nationalised bank and
\nit may\tbe that\t officers of  Anti Corruption Department may
\nhave jurisdiction  to investigate  lapses  on  the  part  of
\nclerks in nationalised banks. It is not clear whether Keshar
\nMal who\t was serving  in a  Middle School  was a  Government
\nemployee or  the school\t itself was  a Government School. It
\nmay be\tthat the  school may  be receiving  grant but if all
\ninstitutions which  receive grant  from Government  and are,
\ntherefore, styled  as Government Departments, and have to be
\ntreated under the police influence then the net will have to
\nbe spread  so wide  not to exclude any one as independent of
\npolice influence. We find no justification in the submission
\nthat  the   two\t motbirs  were\tpersons\t not  likely  to  be
\nindependent of\tpolice influence.  Both of  them  have\tbeen
\naccepted as  independent witnesses  and they  do satisfy the
\ntest of witnesses independent of police influence. Reference
\nin this\t connection was\t made to  Raghbir Singh\t v. State of
\nPunjab(1),  wherein  this  Court  adversely  commented\tupon
\nselecting one Makhan, a sweeper in the whole time employment
\nof police,  as a  witness in  a trap case observing that the
\nAnti Corruption\t Department should  insist on  observing the
\nsafeguard of  selecting independent  persons as witnesses as
\nscrupulously as\t possible for  the protection  of the public
\nservants against  whom a trap may have to be laid. Makhan, a
\nsweeper in the whole time employment of police can obviously
\nnot be\tsaid to\t be independent\t of police influence but how
\ndoes he\t compare with  a clerk\tin a nationalised bank and a
\nteacher in  a middle  school ? It, therefore, cannot be said
\nthat the  two motbirs  could not  be styled  as\t independent
\nwitnesses. In  passing it  was submitted  that Rajendra Dutt
\nand Ram\t Babu must  have intimately known each other because
\nRajendra Dutt had an account in the same branch in which Ram
\nBabu was working as
\n579<\/span>
\nclerk.\tIf  a  Bank  Clerk  is\tsupposed  to  be  intimately
\nconnected with\teach account  holder in\t the  bank,  banking
\nservice would  receive encomiums from the society. But it is
\ndifficult to  accept the submission that on this account Ram
\nBabu could  not be said to be independent witness and let it
\nbe recalled  that by the time Ram Babu came to give evidence
\nRajendra Dutt was already dead.\n<\/p>\n
     The next contention is that even if Ram Babu and Keshar
\nMal are\t independent witnesses\tthere are  certain  inherent
\ninfirmities in\ttheir  evidence\t which\twould  render  their
\nevidence untrustworthy\tof belief.  Before we  examine\tthis
\nsubmission in  detail let  it be reiterated that the learned
\nspecial judge  who tried  the case  and had  seen both these
\nwitnesses giving  evidence has observed that P.W. 1 Ram Babu
\nand P.W. 2 Keshar Mal are independent witnesses and there is
\nnothing in  their testimony  which may\tinduce any  distrust
\nabout the facts stated by them and their evidence was relied
\nupon. The learned judge of the High Court observed that both
\nthe witnesses  are independent\twitnesses and  there  is  no
\nreason why their evidence should not be relied upon.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  now\t time  to  briefly  refer  to  some  of\t the
\nomissions and  contradictions brought  to our  notice with a
\nview to\t persuading us to reject the testimony of both these
\nwitnesses. It  was pointed  out that  according to  Ram Babu
\nboth he\t and Keshar  Mal told  the Dy  SP that\tthe currency
\nnotes were under the pillow while according to Keshar Mal it
\nwas Ram\t Babu who  pointed out\tthat the currency notes were
\nunder the pillow. We find no contradiction in this statement
\nbecause if  plural used by Ram Babu was to be relied upon as
\na  contradiction,   cross-examination  ought  to  have\tbeen
\ndirected on  this point.  It is\t necessary to point out that
\nthe cross-examination  of both\tthe  witnesses\tis  scrappy,
\njumpy and  not pursuant\t to any set theory of defence. It is
\nworthwhile to note that there is not the slightest challenge
\nto the\tstatement of both these witnesses that while waiting
\nin the lobby outside the room both of them saw Rajendra Dutt
\ngiving marked  currency notes to the appellant and appellant
\naccepting the  same and\t keeping them underneath the pillow.
\nIt  was\t  also\turged  that  both  the\twitnesses  in  their
\nrespective statements  in the  course of  investigation have
\nnot referred  that they\t pointed out that the currency notes
\nwere kept  under the  pillow. A further omission was pointed
\nout that  while\t Mahavir  Prasad  has  stated  that  accused
\nstarted quarrelling  with him  which necessitated  summoning
\nadditional police  help, both  the witnesses while referring
\nto the
\n580<\/span>
\nquarrel picked\tup by  the appellant  so as  to support\t the
\nevidence of  Mahavir Prasad  have failed  to refer  to\tthis
\naspect in  their statements  in\t the  course  investigation.
\nThese are  omissions of\t trivial details and have hardly any
\nbearing on the main part of the prosecution case. Along with
\nthis the  earlier omission  in the  statement of  Keshar Mal
\nalready discussed  was reiterated.  In our  opinion the\t so-
\ncalled inner  variations between  the evidence\tof these two
\nwitnesses and  omissions of  trivial details would not cause
\nany dent  in the  testimony  of\t these\ttwo  witnesses.\t Mr.
\nAnthony\t after\t referring   to\t  Darshan   Lal\t  v.   Delhi
\nAdministration<\/a>(1), urged  that if Mahavir Prasad took search
\nof the appellant for recovering the bribe it would show that
\nneither Ram  Babu nor  Keshar Mal had seen appellant keeping
\nmarked currency\t notes under  the pillow.  Such an inference
\ncannot be  drawn. Ordinarily  the police officer would start
\nsearching the  person of  appellant and\t while he  was doing
\nthat act,  he was told where the currency notes were kept by
\nthe appellant. Therefore, no such inference is permissible.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  lastly urged  that\t the  court  should  not  be
\ninfluenced by  the fact that when the hands of the appellant
\nwere dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate it turned pink
\nwhich\twould\t affirmatively\t show\t the   presence\t  of
\nphenolphthalein powder\ton the\ttips of fingers of the hands
\nof the\tappellant. The\tfact remains  that the\tsolution did
\nturn pink when the hands of the appellant were dipped in it.
\nThe explanation of the appellant is that both his hands were
\ncaught by  the members\tof  the\t raiding  party\t and  it  is
\npossible that  the members  of the raiding party whose hands
\nmust have  already  been  soiled  with\tthe  phenolphthalein
\npowder when  the arrangements were being made for laying the
\ntrap they must have transmitted the same to the hands of the
\naccused. This  contention stands  belied by  the evidence on
\nrecord. Mahavir\t Prasad has  deposed that he asked one Ganga
\nSingh to  demonstrate the phenolphthalein powder test. After
\nthat he\t was directed  to wash his hands. No other member of
\nthe raiding  party touched the phenolphthalein powder at the
\ntime of\t demonstration. Ganga  Singh was  a  member  of\t the
\nraiding party  but when the hands of the accused were sought
\nto be  dipped in  the solution\tthis task was assigned to SI
\nSatya Narain.  Undoubtedly there is nothing to show that his
\nhands were  soiled with phenolphthalein powder. The hands of
\nRajendra Dutt must have been soiled with
\n581<\/span>
\nphenalphthalein powder\tbecause he  took  out  the  currency
\nnotes from  his diary  and passed  them on to the appellant.
\nBut it\tis not suggested that Rajendra Dutt caught the hands
\nof the\tappellant. Therefore,  it is  not possible to accept
\nthe submission\tthat when  the hands  of the  appellant were
\ncaught in  the ensuing\tquarrel between\t him and  the Dy  SP
\nMahavir\t Prasad,   phenolphthalein  powder  must  have\tbeen
\ntransmitted by\tpersons holding\t the hands of the appellant.
\nThis tell-tale\tcircumstance would  lend  ample\t independent
\ncorroboration if  there be  any need  to the evidence of Ram
\nBabu and  Keshar Mal  that they\t saw  Rajendra\tDutt  giving
\nmarked currency\t notes to  the appellant  and the  appellant
\naccepting the same and putting them underneath the pillow.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Anthony  urged that  there  are  certain  tell-tale
\ncircumstances in  the case  which would\t render the  defence
\nplausible. It  was urged that the appellant did not disclose
\nany guilty  syndrome when the raiding party entered his room
\nand at\tthe first  question he\tdenied having  accepted\t any
\nbribe from  Rajendra Dutt. How would these two circumstances
\nbe sufficient to reject the otherwise reliable testimony ? A
\nperson with  a strong will would not be upset and may remain
\ncool and collected. The appellant did pick up a quarrel with
\nthe Dy\tSP. Why\t ? His\tsuggestion that\t he insisted  on two
\nindependent witnesses  being kept  present appears  to be an
\nafterthought. The  fact\t that  the  appellant  picked  up  a
\nquarrel is  borne out  from  the  evidence  of\tthe  persons
\npresent there  and by  the action  of the Dy SP in summoning
\nadditional police  help. Therefore, we find no circumstances
\nwhich would impinge upon the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
     We read the entire evidence of two motbirs Ram Babu and
\nKeshar Mal, evidence of Dy SP Mahavir Prasad, Ext. P-12, the
\nF.I.R., and we are in agreement with the High Court that the
\ncase has  been proved  beyond a\t shadow of reasonable doubt.
\nThe evidence of appellant himself does not raise a plausible
\ndefence and has been rightly negatived.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Anthony  further urged\t that the  appellant did not
\ndemand bribe because there is no such evidence and that even
\nif Rajendra  Dutt appears  to have given some currency notes
\nthe appellant  was an  unwilling victim\t and the  court must
\nfrown upon  such attempts  of the  police to make government
\nservants commit offence. He relied
\n582<\/span>
\nupon the  oft quoted  passage in Brannan v. Peek(1). In that
\ncase the  finding was  that when  the second time the police
\nconstable attempted  to give  a bet  the accused  showed his
\nreluctance to  accept the same. That was also the finding of
\nthe justices.  The Court frowned upon the police officers in
\nthe absence  of an  Act of  Parliament going to the place of
\nthe accused  so as  to induce  him to  commit an offence. We
\nfail to\t see how  this observation  has any relevance in the
\nfacts of  this case.  Once the\tsuggestion that\t there was a
\ndemand of  bribe is accepted the appellant could not be said
\nto be an unwilling victim nor a fence sitter who was induced
\nto fall a victim to the trap.\n<\/p>\n
     Lastly it\twas  urged  that  the  court  would  not  be
\njustifiedni raising  a presumption  under S.  4 (1)  of\t the
\nPrevention of  Corruption Act,\t1947. In  the facts  of this
\ncase and in the absence of presumption even if Rajendra Dutt
\ngave some  money to  the appellant  that by itself would not
\nestablish the  offence and  the case must fail. Reliance was
\nplaced on Bansi Lal Yadav v. State of Bihar(2). In that case
\nthe defence  of the  accused was  that currency\t notes\twere
\nthrust in  his pocket.\tTaking cue  from this statement, the
\ncourt held that the acceptance of an amount other than legal
\nremuneration having  been  admitted  the  presumption  would
\narise under  S. 4(1)  and the  burden  would  shift  to\t the
\naccused. It  is in  this context  that this  court held that
\nwhere the  accused says\t that involuntarily  the amount\t was
\nthrust in  his pocket  he could not be said to have accepted
\nor obtained  for himself  any gratification other than legal
\nremuneration which  alone  permits  the\t presumption  to  be
\nraised. Facts  in this\tcase being  a demand and voluntarily
\nacceptance, the\t presumption would  squarely arise  and\t has
\nbeen rightly raised.\n<\/p>\n
     Reliance was  also placed on the decision of this Court
\nin Sultan  Singh v.  State of Rajasthan(3). In that case the
\nexplanation of\tthe appellant  was that\t Rs. 100 was paid to
\nhim towards  the arrears  of revenue  and in  the absence of
\nreliable evidence  to the  contrary the explanation was held
\nacceptable. This is a decision on the facts of that case and
\nwould be hardly of any assistance in dealing with the points
\nraised in this case.\n<\/p>\n
583<\/span><\/p>\n
     Therefore, the  charge is\tbrought home  to the accused
\nand he\thas been  rightly convicted and the sentence awarded
\nbeing the  minimum, no case is made out for interfering with
\nthe same.\n<\/p>\n
     Accordingly this  appeal fails  and is  dismissed.\t The
\nbail  bond  of\tthe  appellant\tis  cancelled  and  he\tmust
\nsurrender to serve out the sentence.\n<\/p>\n
H.L.C.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n584<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kishan Chand Mangal vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 October, 1982 Equivalent citations: 1982 AIR 1511, 1983 SCR (1) 569 Author: D Desai Bench: Desai, D.A. PETITIONER: KISHAN CHAND MANGAL Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF RAJASTHAN DATE OF JUDGMENT14\/10\/1982 BENCH: DESAI, D.A. BENCH: DESAI, D.A. SEN, A.P. (J) CITATION: 1982 AIR 1511 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-147797","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKishan Chand Mangal vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 October, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishan-chand-mangal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-14-october-1982\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kishan Chand Mangal vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 October, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishan-chand-mangal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-14-october-1982\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1982-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-20T12:52:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"31 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishan-chand-mangal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-14-october-1982#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishan-chand-mangal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-14-october-1982\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kishan Chand Mangal vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 October, 1982\",\"datePublished\":\"1982-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-20T12:52:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishan-chand-mangal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-14-october-1982\"},\"wordCount\":5430,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishan-chand-mangal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-14-october-1982#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishan-chand-mangal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-14-october-1982\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishan-chand-mangal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-14-october-1982\",\"name\":\"Kishan Chand Mangal vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 October, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1982-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-20T12:52:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishan-chand-mangal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-14-october-1982#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishan-chand-mangal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-14-october-1982\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kishan-chand-mangal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-14-october-1982#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kishan Chand Mangal vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 October, 1982\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kishan Chand Mangal vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 October, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishan-chand-mangal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-14-october-1982","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kishan Chand Mangal vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 October, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishan-chand-mangal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-14-october-1982","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1982-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-20T12:52:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"31 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishan-chand-mangal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-14-october-1982#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishan-chand-mangal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-14-october-1982"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kishan Chand Mangal vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 October, 1982","datePublished":"1982-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-20T12:52:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishan-chand-mangal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-14-october-1982"},"wordCount":5430,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishan-chand-mangal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-14-october-1982#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishan-chand-mangal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-14-october-1982","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishan-chand-mangal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-14-october-1982","name":"Kishan Chand Mangal vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 October, 1982 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1982-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-20T12:52:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishan-chand-mangal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-14-october-1982#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishan-chand-mangal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-14-october-1982"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kishan-chand-mangal-vs-state-of-rajasthan-on-14-october-1982#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kishan Chand Mangal vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 October, 1982"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147797","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=147797"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147797\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=147797"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=147797"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=147797"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}