JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

2. The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction dated 06.08.2019 and Order of Sentence dated 09.08.2019 passed by learned Special Judge (A.C.B.), Palamau at Daltonganj in Vigilance Case No.09 of 2011 whereby and where under the learned court below held the appellant-accused guilty and convicted her for having committed the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years with fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that that complainant-P.W.6- Sakaldip Vishwakarma was a Rojgar Sathi (Meth), involved in Panchayat Level Scheme No.03/2009-10 relating to construction of a pond in the field of Ram Raksha Vishwakarma. It is alleged that the appellant-accused while posted as Rojgar Sewak demanded bribe from P.W.6- the complainant, for the payment of the wages of the labourers as the same was to be paid to the B.D.O. and told that unless the complainant pays Rs.1,000/-, the B.D.O. will not make the payment of the complainant. As the complainant was not intending to pay the bribe amount, he approached the Vigilance Bureau by submitting a written application marked Ext.6. On the basis of the written application of the complainant, P.W.9 conducted verification and finding the allegation of the written application to be true, the P.W.9 submitted his report. On the basis of the same, the F.I.R. of this case has been registered and a trap team was constituted. A successful trap was made on 29.03.2011, at the office of the appellant-accused was at Pandu Block and the appellant-accused was caught red-handed while accepting the bribe. The post trap formalities were done. The P.W.10 being the I.O. of the case took charge of the investigation, obtained the sanction for prosecution and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charge for the said offences were framed against the appellant-accused and upon her denying the charges, she was put to trial.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution has altogether examined ten witnesses besides proving documents. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant-accused.

5. P.W.6- Sakaldip Vishwakarma is the complainant of this case. He has been declared hostile on the prayer of the prosecution as he did not support the case of the prosecution. Before being declared hostile, the P.W.6 has stated that in the year 2011, he was involved in the work of construction of a pond under a programme in the field of Ram Raksha Vishwakarma. He was Rogjar Sathi (Meth). He did not get his remuneration in respect of his work. He submitted an application to the B.D.O. for the payment. He also submitted a written application to the Vigilance Bureau. On being proved by him, the same has been marked Ext.6. The Rojgar Sewak was demanding Rs.1,000/- to give to the B.D.O. The Vigilance Bureau Officers obtained his signature and told him to deposit Rs.1,000/- demanded by the appellant-accused. P.W.6 deposited one note of Rs.500/- and five notes of Rs.100/- denomination each and came back to his house. The team of the Vigilance Bureau met him at Pandu Bazar (Market) and told him to remain near Jarasangh Bhawan of Pandu and the team went to the Block Office. While the team was returning, the team members told the P.W.6 that the payment of P.W.6 will be made but the payment was not made. The P.W.6 had never paid any money to the appellant-accused. After being declared hostile, the P.W.6 identified his signature over the G.C. note memorandum which was marked Ext.2/6. On being put leading questions by the prosecution, the P.W.6 denied the case of the prosecution. In his cross-examination, the P.W.6