When prosecution witnesses turn hostile, their testimony is not automatically discarded; the court may rely on portions of their evidence that support the prosecution case, provided they are corroborated by other reliable evidence on record, such as independent trap proceedings and physical evidence.

:: JUDGMENT ::

This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant – Accused Officer (AO) aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.11.2011 passed in Calendar Case No.87 of 2010 by the learned II Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases at Hyderabad (for short ‘the trial Court’).

2. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court found the Accused Officer guilty of the charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month for the offence under Section 7 of the Act and further he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act. Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the Accused Officer Sri Dharavath Erya worked as an Assistant Engineer (Operation) in NPDCL, Chandrugonda of Khammam District, being a public servant, demanded and accepted the tainted amount of Rs.3,000/- on 24.08.2006 at 09:15 AM in the Fuse Off Call Office, Chandrugonda of Khammam District, from the de facto complainant for doing official favour, i.e., for processing his file seeking electricity connection for his agriculture borewell. Thus, the charge sheet is filed under Section 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Act. The same was tried by the Special Court for SPE & ACB cases.

4. During the trial, PWs.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P1 to P22 and MOs 1 to 9 were marked on behalf of the prosecution, whereas DWs 1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the Accused Officer and Ex.D1 was marked.

5. The trial Court, on evaluating the evidence on record, has convicted the Accused Officer and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-; in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default of payment of fine, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal is preferred by the Accused Officer.

6. Heard the submissions of M.B.Thimma Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri A.Vishwanath, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Mohammed Nazeeruddin Khan, learned counsel representing Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for ACB Cases for the respondent - State.

7. The learned appellant counsel has submitted that the appellant has not demanded any amount and that the complainant himself has turned hostile; therefore, there is no question of demand or acceptance by the accused officer. Despite the de facto complainant and PW2 turning hostile, the trial Court has gone ahead and convicted the accused officer and has erroneously passed the sentence of imprisonment and fine against him. He further submitted that when there is no proof of demand or acceptance against the accused officer, the trial Court should not have convicted him and that there is no evidence to prove the charges against the accused officer beyond reasonable doubt. He, therefore, prayed to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Cou