The judgment established the importance of circumstantial evidence, the admissibility of evidence from a hostile witness, and the need for the accused to provide a true explanation to rebut the presumption under Sec. 20 of the P.C. Act.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. This is an appeal is filed by the appellant/accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot in Special Case No.38/2010 dtd. 12/11/2013, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'P.C. Act') and sentenced him for imprisonment with fine.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the Trial court.

3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that the accused is a Village Accountant and a public servant. The complainant had purchased 2.01 acres of land in Rs. No.98/3 of Bandakeri Village and he has applied for mutating his name in RTC. It is also alleged that when the complainant has approached the accused in this regard, the accused has demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2, 000.00 and Rs.1, 000.00 was paid in advance and the balance of Rs.1, 000.00 was demanded by the accused. The complainant being reluctant to pay the bribe went to the Lokayukta office and lodged a complaint before the Lokayukta as per Ex.P.27 on 9/4/2009 at about 1.00 p.m. The investigating officer has registered the complaint and then he secured two witnesses and drawn an entrustment mahazar, as per Ex.P1 in presence of the panchas after production of the amount to be paid as a bribe by the complainant. It is also alleged that then the trap was laid down. The complainant along with the shadow witness approached the accused in the canteen of K.S.R.T.C. Bus Stand, Kerur around 4.00 p.m. and there when the complainant enquired with the accused regarding his work of mutating the name, it is alleged that the accused has demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.1, 000.00. He was trapped at that time and his hand wash was taken and the bribe amount was also recovered from his custody. The shirt pocket of the accused was also taken, which has also tested positive and then a trap Mahazar was also drawn. The accused was asked to give his explanation and it is also alleged that the accused has also given an explanation as per Ex.P.26 wherein he claimed that there was no work pending with him and he attended the work of complainant on 6/4/2009 itself and he never demanded and accepted illegal gratification. His statement also discloses that the complainant has offered Rs.1, 000.00 but he never demanded it. Then the accused was arrested by the investigating officer and he has also drawn a trap Mahazar as per Ex.P.2. The photographs were also taken while drawing the trap mahazar and then the investigating officer has also recorded the statement of material witnesses. Subsequently, after obtaining sanction, the investigating officer submitted the charge sheet against the accused.

4. After submission of the charge sheet as there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, the cognizance of alleged offences were taken by the learned Special Judge. Meanwhile, the accused was enlarged on bail and he was also provided with the prosecution papers. He denied the charge alleged against him.

5. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined in all 18 witnesses and also placed reliance on 47 documents and 9 material objections. After conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded to enable him to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the case of the prosecution. The case of the accused is of total denial and he has submitted his written statement wherein he denied the demand and acceptance of bribe.

6. Then after hearing the arguments and after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Special Judge found that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and thereb