Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Mohan Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution trap, trial evidence, and conviction summary (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. appeal challenges contradictions, lack of demand (Para 7 , 9) |
| 3. state defends corroboration by prior demand (Para 10) |
| 4. witness contradictions undermine trap reliability (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. prior official entry negates bribe motive (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. shadow witness must overhear demand (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. mere recovery insufficient without demand proof (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 8. investigation flaws, discrepant evidence fatal (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 9. appeal allowed, accused acquitted (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
Judgment :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 29.08.2012 and order of sentence dated 31.08.2012, passed by learned Special Judge, Una, H.P. (learned Trial Court), vide which the appellant (accused before the learned Trial Court) was convicted and sentenced as under: -
(Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)
2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are t
In bribery trap cases, proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of gratification is essential; mere recovery of tainted notes insufficient amid material witness contradictions, absent shadow witness ....
Proof of demand and voluntary acceptance essential for conviction under Sections 7/13(2) PC Act; mere tainted money recovery insufficient. Appellate interference in acquittal only if perverse or unre....
Demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) PC Act; mere recovery insufficient without proof, especially absent pending official work & with hostile sha....
When clouds of doubt arises on the part of the prosecution, the benefit of doubt is always accrued on the part of the accused alone, which is the cardinal principle of criminal justice delivery syste....
Requirement to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act is critical for conviction; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
Mere recovery of tainted notes without proof of demand and voluntary acceptance insufficient for conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) PC Act; demand is sine qua non, presumption under Section 20 ina....
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential to convict under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of bribe money is insufficient.
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential to establish offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
