Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 55
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.SOMASHEKAR, J.
T.Gopalaiah, S/o Thirumalaiah - Appellant
Versus
State By Lokayukta Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.754 of 2011
Decided on : 02-03-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sri Pavana Chandra Shetty H., Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri Venkatesh S. Arbatti, adv
Headnote:
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - SECTION 7, 13(1)(D) R/W 13(2) - DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE - APPELLANT/ACCUSED - SECOND DIVISION SURVEYOR - DEMANDED AND ACCEPTED BRIBE OF RS.300/- FROM COMPLAINANT - APPELLANT/ACCUSED CONVICTED AND SENTENCED BY TRIAL COURT - APPEAL FILED BY APPELLANT/ACCUSED - HELD, APPEAL ALLOWED - JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE SET ASIDE - APPELLANT/ACCUSED ACQUITTED.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant/accused, a Second Division Surveyor, was convicted and sentenced by the trial court for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.300/- from the complainant. The appellant/accused challenged the conviction and sentence in an appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the complainant, who was the author of the complaint, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. The court also found that the evidence of the panch witnesses, who were secured by the police inspector to witness the trap, was contradictory to the evidence of the complainant and the police inspector. The court further found that the trial court had misdirected and misinterpreted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the trial court had misdirected and misinterpreted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the complainant, who was the author of the complaint, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. The court also found that the evidence of the panch witnesses, who were secured by the police inspector to witness the trap, was contradictory to the evidence of the complainant and the police inspector. The court further found that the trial court had misdirected and misinterpreted the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were set aside, and the appellant/accused was acquitted.
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the II Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Spl.Case No.67/2004 dated 2.7.2011 convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused was sentenced to suffer RI for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, and RI for a period of one year and to pay of Rs.5,000/- and in default to pay the fine amount, to further undergo RI for three months and six months respectively for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act respectively.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 01.12.2003 at about 15.05 hrs in Gubbi, the accused being a public servant who was serving as Second Division Surveyor in the office of Taluk Surveyor, Gubbi is alleged to have demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.300/- from CW.1 with a motive to favour him in exercise of his official duty, thereby committing offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the P.C.Act.
3. Subsequent to registration of crime, PW.6 – J.B.Rangaswamy, the Police Inspector of Lokayukta, Tumkur secured P.W.5 – Lakshminarasimharaju to act as panch witness. Accordingly, he drew the pretrap mahazar as per Ex.P4 in the presence of panch witnesses and also in the presence of PW.3 – B.Shankaraiah based on a complaint as per Ex.P3 and so also, produced M.O.6 – 3 currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination. During the pretrap mahazar, PW.6 held demonstration in the presence of PWs.4 and 5 that if the Government servant comes into contact with tainted currency notes which is applied with phenolphthalein powder, then his fingers will be dipped into sodium carbonate solution and the same shall turn pink into colour. This demonstration was done by PW.6 in front of the panch witnesses. During the pretrap mahazar, PW.6 gave certain instructions to PWs.4 and 5 and also in the presence of PW.3 who is the author of the complaint at Ex.P3 and also facilitated with M.O.6 – currency notes. Subsequent to drawing the pretrap mahazar, PW.6 led the team consisting the panch witnesses and also, PW.3 to the office of the accused where he was working as Second Division Surveyor. PW.3 tendered the tainted currency notes of Rs.300/- to the accused. Subsequently, PW.3 – Shankaraiah came out from the office of the accused and gave signal to PW.6 by wiping of his face with hand kerchief. Subsequent to receipt of signal extended by PW.3, PW.6 rushed to the office of the accused where PW.3 had tendered the tainted money to accused and kept in his short pocket. M.O.6 was verified by PW.5 on which the phenolphthalein powder was applied and also noted the number of currency notes, which were tallied.
4. Subsequent to drawing of trap mahazar as per Ex.P5 in the presence of PWs.4 and 5 and so also, in the presence of PW.3 – Shankaraiah, M.O.6 was seized. Thereafter, PW.6 secured documents as per Ex.P7 – survey mahazar and application given to survey office as per Ex.P8 wherein the wife of PW.3 Shankaraiah has subscribed her signature. Ex.P9 is the attendance register and so also, programme register as per Ex.P10. Ex.P12 is the chemical examiner’s report. These are all the documents secured by PW.6 and laid the charge sheet against the accused before the Court below.
5. Subsequent to laying of charge sheet, the Court below framed charges against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.Act, whereby the accused did not plead guilty but claimed to be tried. Subsequently, the prosecution in order to substantiate its case, examined in all PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to 14 and M.Os.1 to 11. Subsequent to closure of evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C to enable the incriminating statement appeared against him, whereby the accused de
