The judgment emphasizes the importance of considering the cumulative effect of all evidence in establishing the case of the prosecution, especially in cases involving demand and acceptance of bribes.

Budihal R.B., J.

1. This appeal is preferred by appellant-accused being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Principal Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge, Shimoga in Special (PC) Case No. 5/2007 dated 21.9.2010.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the criminal case against the appellant-accused are that P.W. 1 one Jagadeesh, G.M. filed the complaint against the appellant-accused as per Ex. P1 to the Lokayuktha Police Inspector, Shimoga alleging that he is working in the P.W.D. department as first class contractor. During the year 2005-2006, he was given the work of road development by the Executive Engineer No. 4, BRRBC Division, Bhadravathi from Gadamghatta to Kempaiah Thokkalu with the estimated cost of Rs. 60,000/- and also the development work of the roads leading to land in Sy. No. 26 of Malligenahalli village with the estimated cost of Rs. 60,000/-. Both the works were given to the complainant on contract basis for an amount of Rs. 59,940/- and Rs. 59,985/- respectively. Work order was also issued in this regard and the complainant has also entered into an agreement in this regard on 21.11.2005. Accordingly, complainant started the said work in December 2005 and completed it on 15.1.2006. He reported the completion of the said work to one Sri. Manjunath, Section Officer, who in turn, after verification forwarded the bills to his superior officer one Vijaykumar Khanapur, Assistant Executive Engineer No. 2, BRRBC, D.B. Halli. In respect of the said two works, complainant had already received Rs. 28,543/- and Rs. 36,534/- by way of cheque and bill was due to him for an amount of Rs. 30,957/- and Rs. 22,966/- respectively. When the complainant met the Assistant Executive Engineer on 20.1.2006 and enquired about the payment of bill amount, the accused demanded 5% of the amount payable to the complainant which comes to Rs. 2,700/- to put his signature to the check measurement bills, for which, complainant informed that he is not having the amount and after the payment of bill amount he will pay the same. As the bills were not at all signed, the complainant contacted the Assistant Executive Engineer Sri. Vijaykumar Khanapur, the appellant-accused herein, over phone and when enquired about the payment of bill amount, the appellant-accused told that he will sign the bills only after the payment of bribe amount. As the complainant was not interested to pay the bribe amount for getting his work done, he approached the Lokayuktha Police Inspector and requested to take legal action against him. In the complaint he has also mentioned that he has brought the amount of Rs. 2,700/- demanded by the appellant-accused and whenever asked, he will produce the same.

3. On the basis of the said complaint Ex. P1, case was registered in Shivamogga Lokayuktha Police station Crime No. 1/2006 against the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and received the FIR as per Ex. P38.

4. After conducting and completing the investigation, the investigating officer filed the charge sheet against the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7,13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Then charge was framed and plea was also recorded. As the appellant-accused denied the allegations, matter was posted for conducting the trial. On the side of the prosecution, witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 7 were examined, documents Exs. P1 to P38 and the materials objects MOs. 1 to 12 were marked and on the side of appellant-accused, documents Exs. D1 to D3 were marked.

5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence and also merits of the case, the trial Court has ultimately convicted the appellant-accused for the said offences. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-accused has preferred this appeal on the grounds as mentioned at Sl. Nos. I to XIV of the appeal memorandum.

6. Heard the arguments of the