Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 4294
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J
RATNA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.A 100116 of 2016
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictions in witness testimonies significantly undermine the case.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) - Conviction for bribery - Accused convicted and sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment by Sessions Court - Prosecution alleged demand for illegal gratification for issuing certificates - Evidence included testimonies and recorded conversations - Court found prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictory testimonies and lack of admissible evidence. (Paras 1, 8, 18)
(B) Burden of Proof - The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and any contradictions in witness testimonies weaken the case. (Paras 9, 18)
Facts of the case:
The accused, an ophthalmologist, was alleged to have demanded a bribe of ₹2500 for issuing visibility defect certificates to visually impaired individuals. The complainant recorded the demand and lodged a complaint with the Lokayukta Police, leading to a trap operation. (Paras 2-6)
Findings of Court:
The prosecution's case was undermined by the hostility of key witnesses and the lack of forensic validation of electronic evidence. The court concluded that the prosecution did not prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 11-18)
Issues: Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and if the conviction warranted interference. (Paras 11, 18)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution's failure to provide reliable evidence and the contradictions in witness statements led to the conclusion that the guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 18)
Result: Appeal allowed; the appellant acquitted of the offences.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present criminal appeal is filed by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Court, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.
2. The prosecution alleges that the complainant (PW2) was a social worker associated with an organization for the welfare of the handicapped. Two visually impaired individuals, PW6 and CW6, had approached the said organization seeking issuance of visibility defect certificates. The complainant (PW2) escorted them to the appellant, who was an ophthalmologist at the Government District Hospital, Navanagar, Bagalkot, and requested her to issue the required certificates.
3. It is alleged that the appellant demanded an illegal gratification of ₹2500 for issuing the said certificates. Upon being informed of this demand, a member of the organization advised the complainant to approach the Lokayukta Police. On the same day, at about 12:30 p.m., the complainant, accompanied by his associate, met the Police Inspector of the Lokayukta (PW12) and narrated the demand for bribe by the appellant. Acting upon the directions of PW12, the complainant was provided with a tape recorder to record the conversation with the accused.
4. As instructed, the complainant again approached the appellant and reiterated his request for issuance of the certificates. During this interaction, the appellant allegedly reaffirmed her demand for a bribe of ₹2500, which was recorded in the tape recorder. The complainant thereafter returned to the Lokayukta Police Station and lodged a formal complaint (Ex.P18) against the appellant.
5. Pursuant to the complaint, the Lokayukta Police secured two panch witnesses (CW2 and PW1) and conducted a pre-trap mahazar (Ex.P1). The complainant produced one currency note of ₹1000 denomination and three currency notes of ₹500 denomination, whose serial numbers were noted down. These notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and handed over to the complainant, who was instructed to proceed to the residential quarters of the appellant, accompanied by the shadow witness (PW1), to execute the trap.
6. Upon reaching the quarters, the complainant allegedly handed over the tainted currency notes to the appellant. He then stepped out of the premises and gave the predetermined signal. The Lokayukta Police, along with the raiding team, immediately entered the premises, disclosed their identity to the appellant, and prepared a sodium carbonate solution test in two separate bowls. Upon dipping the appellant’s right and left hand into the solutions, both solutions turned pink, indicating the presence of phenolphthalein powder. The complainant then informed the police that the appellant had demanded and accepted the bribe amount of ₹2500 and issued the certificates.
7. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined 13 witnesses (PW1 to PW13), exhibited documents at Ex.P1 to P38(b), and marked material objects (MO1 to MO8). The accused produced documents marked as Ex.D1 to D4.
8. After framing points for consideration and evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court recorded a finding that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and consequently convicted and sentenced her.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that:
• The complainant (PW2) turned hostile and in his testimony admitted that he placed the tainted currency beneath the vanity bag of the appellant at the behest of the police.
• The shadow witness (PW1) gave contradictory statements during cross-examination, admitting that he did not enter the residential quarters of the appellant but saw the appellant accepting the bribe through a window. This contradicted his earlier statement recorded in t
