Em.)
True 5%? ?E.%L {":OMB\&'(} ON FOR HEARING
BAY, THE COURT DELIVERED Tm: FOLLQWINC}; f f .
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal «.Vt’h_e
Lokayukta police eaiiing in quesi’i–Q§i’V–the of
acquittal passed by the Vf5es*s§ioi1s. ‘:§Judge
acquitting the respofifient the effenees
punishable under S€AC:ti:<T§g:*1s *V"r/W section
13(2) of the eo§4mp7::on Act, 1988
('P.C.Aei' in_se:%1}:;;:t
23. ” ‘ ‘I’h,e’ ~é;’ase~..< )f.nth_e prosecution in short is
that, the"-«a;<:euee_d?:es}§endent while working as a
Vi}1'é§geAg:c0ufitan–§«' at Halehalli relvenue Circle?
dVen1e.r1(i;edV"'eV.e;:'Qribe amount of Rs,1,5()O/~ from the
eo;:'iVpEa§:jaf1t}:i:1 order to effect change eff Katha in
favou~r <;;f the Complainant' The cempiainant, after
A "ii severe} attempts is get the kaiha changed by
e§§p1*'{3a{,%i':}::1g' the aeezieeci, fiI"}3.§}? wen: is ihe
Lz:21«:ayL1ki;22 p<}§,i{:e aizd Eeéggeé :::i::pEeirr: as per
5%:
EXJP4. Thereafierwards, the entrustmem nxahazar
was Conducted as per EX.P1 and the e0mp}*’:ii:fi’é:’:j;f,”
accompanied by the shadow witness PX?\7~f>i{.”‘ V’
the office of the accused and accused
bribe and it was given by $0
accused. Thereafterwarde,’Sigma}
Lokayukta poiiee who’ .(;ameAee9zfi:<.§._:';ffei1:».ped flthe aeeused.
T he trap mahazar Vé per EX.P2.
On C0fHp1€’§[.iO’;$4 ;:’0f included
getting from PWA4 and
the s{an’¢:1.§§:, as per EX..P10, the
charge’ Sheet was $;a;b’mi’tted.
Feihfixfingithe accused not pleading guilty
.fio.,1heV_chxé:-rge, the prosecution examined seven
“of whom, PW»-I was the Complainant
anei” was the shadow witness. E:><;.P1 iie P10
»;m::;§ rearked and $1.03.: to 8 were alse productedé
'E}2::*iI1g triai, accused statement wag reeerrjed and
.ma{Tf{?EE,$€*§ difi net feed arzy «iefenee evidenee.
3%
5?;
5%
4. The learned trial judge after apprec§é§:§::g
the evidence an recsrd, wok the Vi€1¥ .
prosecutian has faiied to estabfish thus” £:}j1<:u
actcusefi beyand ail reasonable '=s:i0ub.f afi{i.
at this eonclusiori, 1€ameéi'4itria}j*.;~3_.dgeV refiztéfdefi ii§t1e%
finding that there was 2 the
accused and secondI:y 'fhe1§;c§ ~-;:j:c;A:'§:Cz;"r0boratien in
the evidence efv 'Jthe shadcrw
witness i;® ' uefifitsience indicating
V Unless there was
demaigfld ._tE':é question cf pr0s:3cuf;io11
estab1i$H§1ég the accused does not
it is of: rezasoning that the benefit of doubt
.A the accused and the judgment of
' 3,é'q1:§ti"ai".':wias; jfiasséd.
I have haard iearrzed éaungei Sri.
V'_'A;'§»._{?'.r ;E?,a.§3'«:3r1s:i2'3b Redciy for the Lokayukta golice and
Wafisa S:'i.Vi}ay Kumar fer :*e3p£:¥:Ad€::t»~a£:us€é and
E"
534?
‘5
perused the judgment of the trial Court as
records of this Case.
6. Submission of
learned eeunse} for the apgjeflarzt is }easi:i:;1e1f’:’§ee
of E3’W~1 and PW12 would go aeeused
had accepted the from
the eornplainaet 5’the accused
was also trial court
could not€.Tr:;at.vfe’ that there was no
demanii”‘e’b§;f’:j;the*ft.§ar:e’ae’ed. “””‘IviCi:1*eoVer, by virtue of
seCtio f:_2§ once there is evidence
indicating«…aeee1:§t.ari::e the amount by the accused,
the’§’«:.pres1;m;§t’i&)n,._.wi11 have to be drawn that the
‘ ._aeeepted the gratification. Therefore,
‘:h,.e*-.triai éfea1:A::{was in error in holding that there was
no éiemaiiii by the aeeueed.
7. As far as the V\9’OI’k is concerned, {earned
_’v__ur:ee§ fer the appeiiant referred :0 the eemglaént
{:{}i’:’€,€}7§*:$ fie firzei eat é:i’1a’: ‘é/he :;:s:3r::;3ia§r1a:3: me: the
W
§ 1
6
accused number cf times and {he accused was
demandeing certain amount which was origmfilyz
Rs.6§OOO/– and brought: dawn to
finally Rs.1§500/~. –
8. AS far as iack of e’orr0boratio13,o’f ‘Vexéidexigeeyé
between PW~1 and PW~2 eonee’i’f1_1 €d’:, fearned
counsel referred to tI1e “:%evia:5i_:eniCe” (3f:’ffi’ese witnesses to
fi% out that the 5.130 present
when the :th’e’ a’rfiount from the
comp1ainar1t.’5~. b
” ._ TE1efef”Qre’,v«,§he4 itfeasoning of the trial court
is Contrary” .t0″the’V-eV1–:1e:siCe on record and as such, the
;_}:;f V._aequ’ift’ai””requires to be set aside and
_ .r:€:kr}viete(i of the Qffenees with which he
xvasw eha11g$je:§i;TV
On the eiher hand, submissien of
A;:§1*i.Vi}a}g Eiumar, leameé eeuzzssei fer the reeperiderm
mézgiitzzseé 23 {E233 the {tie} sstozzfli eemizlified as €I’§’OI” in
2;?/”
age
)5′ %
*7
aequitting the aeeused because the1~e*..’:.”w:»1e’ V’
evidence indicating demand ma’de–_by- the”e-e;eeVuvse.d
and seeendiyz PW»1’s evidenee 1’e1i{f3A_’Tfi[otT S:§Ap-peife
evicienee of P’W»2 bec3.useT._V:I3*W~2 Wee near’
the scene when the _alleged_4_L:ih.e_ident have
taken place and e:_mL it;i.A_r10*: “hear the
conversation Aijetweegxe “«€héj'”” and the
accused.
V11,’ ._\%a0’1’k___isf concerned, learned
counsel f0rx’LLh_~e.eeeue.eCi._po_iI1ied out that no work was
pending’ With’ and the application had
bee;*–:e,flVef1 ‘ the ei3rrV1f)..1aiI1ant to the Taluk office and
At1’1ie’ s;1id ‘epplieefieri had not been forwarded to the
“‘J:1’Iag:e«._}%veC.<}.1:;3ta11t and as such. the question of
e::e:1se§i."Ee*:i;frfing some work ef the eemplainant to be
done, flees not arise.
32% The trial court had taken mete of 2111 these
éelaiiere 32:16; has rifghiiy given the benefit ef éeubi te
the accused. The ereier of aequittaj there§ere_””
net eel} fer iaterferenee.
13. Having thus heard7.’be’§h*~’;eie{eS§;’
the erder of aequitial req11i§fe’3..’£0 Lie:§1:e:1;:~;¥e;:1em::1:¥or%
not is the point for L =the””efde;*v..e§f acquittal does
:10′: cal} fer i2%iie1;fei*er1ee.’ja’E’theee hjaiids of the appellate
eeee . .
court and ‘seeeoncfly, _tI1e anew taken by the tnal court
is a pfe};*,a?;;le’*.§ie::§f~ef’ evidence on reeerd and the
saidyiew fl<":2.e:f:VI1et'.'be"vdie;fiurbed by the appellate Court.
–,:Vi»f’i:h the aforesaid principles being kept in
view, I.’ h;axre’T;;eXa1nined the evidence on record and S0
fay ae..__”ti1e” demand 13 ceneerned, P\3’V~1 whe is the
Aeemeiginani, has staieé eaiegeriealiy in his
e;:a$%ni:1e.:ie:1~i::~eheief that, fer effeeiizzg change ef
Eieihe, eeeueeé eiiei nee cjemand any meney frem him.
Despite this evidence of PW~1, proseeu*;ior1H_cii,dV”net”-.
declare him hostile, but went on to eXan1ine.’:furthe1;’.”h — h
15. As far as the e{:_i’de:hee5
concerned, who is said tovhe the’ehecdoxx?eV¥.réi{nees,
does not say in his evid’eh’ee thee eeefised
demanded amount fiforh the
other hand, PWAZ haeshh standing
near the dcj*~o’1′:..~g é’rid office of the
accused. is contradicted by
PWN other hand that, he
5 ‘ . V~.’ ,1 ‘(V 1 (‘$1 , .m~ r)
went. 11:«s:d_e the c-.fiEeeev«e-i thy: aeeuaeo along \ Eco r vv-42.
It iefor ‘I’eaVS-0f:*–._’eh5i1f the learned trial judge held
ithere corroboration between the
» §:’erhp1,a1neu; t’~va.:1ci the shadow witness and reiying on
H :1}£é.ee’.:i§’;en;§:§f ‘this Court reported in 2004(2) KCCR
12133.’, Eearned iriak judge has held that
2 eemjobor3.tion ef evidence of eomplainami by a
shadow wimese is a must and the: if there is no
§’?:«»V*””
K :2 1*”
H}
corroboration, it is not safe to convict i:h’e7 ‘
person.
16. As far as the work isA:eV0fieernee£,.VMP’.¥~«1
depesed in his evidence dafifxeg/{v_t11eA’eress_fe§:aI§j111Vati’£3n
that he gave an app}ig:atieaafeeA”ehanLge 52* to the
Taluk office and that as
soon as ihe a.pp1ieatienaiiareaehesh”.:hei/bwfieeused. the
werk of This itself
shows that’ ieith the accused as
on evidence of PW~1 is
fact that in the erossa
examinatieii: V_sf’P.\.;V~;E*}., vii: has been brought out that in
2,.A*-e,w1’~1i.<:h Es" "" the application, there was no
"either of the Taluk office or of the
Revenue 'hjs;§eetor's office:
Thus, it is clear from the afsresaid
igzaeerial an reeerd that the triai eourt ‘Leek the View
_i?hat, first ef ah ihere was no eiernand by ihe accused
ans? the prsseeuiies has rzei; sreved iihat {he aeeeaseé
is
257’?
In
11
did demand Rs.1,500/~ from the co:fl.§bia;;:1a;%it.e»
Secondly, the finding’ that no v»3efk”v.:as’,ApendVi1*:g Witt} ‘
the accused is 5350 borne euteffortx th’e.,eafe1:efS:§{id.VV”‘
evidence ef PW~1 anci PW43,
18. As far as ;eerrot5era:ti<§t1.yte-.eoneetned, PW?
Ye evidence that he wt'~e;f1tt'v"it1eiC3e:tV"tbez__'_effi<:e of the
accused a1or}glWti.th Ifillfitifiéd P\7V~2 himself
who ea}/s5.'t'h"a1t ge tt_1eid»e the office of the
accused but
. aforesaid reasons, the
View takefxxby triai~~–e0urt cannot be said to be an
" . . e-R3;
‘ u1.1rea;:»Qnab1e v*1e’e:~«0f the exndenee on record er’ the
‘ fi11<:ij1:–g'1*ee.efd_ed Cannot be termed as perverse in the
H et"AVth.eVA'eei}tdenee of PW-»1 the eemplainant that
ae'e:1se_<:i' bever demanded any mesney from the
eemb1a.ibant. I therefore see no case made eat by the
A' -..VSt3te for this court to interfere with the order of
K __:aé.equitt,ai paeeeti by the trig} eetzrt,
§'s
».3
'WM
wit