ADAGOUDA BABURAO PATIL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The appellant was the accused before the trial court in the following circumstances:-

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant would point out that there are glaring infirmities in the reasoning of the court below. First and foremost, it is evident that PW.1, the complainant had not supported the case of the prosecution. In that, the complainant has categorically stated that he had lodged a complaint in the first instance and the trap was laid insofar as the accused was concerned. The accused had not demanded the bribe amount nor had received the same, but the complainant had forcibly thrust the tainted money into the hands of the accused and has therefore, on such a turnaround by the said witness, he has been treated as a hostile witness and has been cross-examined. Notwithstanding the same, the court below has chosen to examine the evidence of the complainant and has sought to find a case for the prosecution while eschewing certain statements made by him and while placing reliance on certain other statements. Such an exercise is not known to law and even it if could be said that the court is not entirely precluded from addressing the statements made, which would certainly prove the case of the prosecution, but if the same is inconsistent with other statements, it may not support the case of the prosecution. The present situation is such where the entire prosecution case is based on the complaint of the said witness PW.1 and when PW.1, who was instrumental in paying the bribe amount when a demand was made by the accused, categorically states that there was no demand and that he had forcibly thrust the money into the accused's hand, the entire case of the prosecution would fail. This aspect of the matter is sought to be glossed over by the trial court in finding a case for the prosecution with reference to the complaint, the sequence of events where the entrustment mahazar was drawn up, leading to the seizure mahazar. Even accepting that there was a successful trap laid, there are other glaring infirmities which again would not enable the prosecution to claim that the charges have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. As for instance, there is total inconsistency between the evidence of the complainant and the evidence of the panch witness as well as the evidence of the Investigating authority. Insofar as the recovery of the tainted money is concerned, according to the complainant, the accused was brought out of a meeting hall and as they were walking along the road in public, the money was handed over to the accused, though he has resiled from that statement, he has later stated that it was forcibly thrust into the hands of the accused and then he had signalled the Lokayukta team. This is the first infirmity. Secondly, it is stated that the money was given and the money was received by the accused in his right hand. There is no indication in the mahazar that the money was put into his pocket by the accused. But PW.2 in his evidence has stated that the accused after receiving the money had put the money into his pocket. Contrary to such a statement, the evidence of the Investigation Officer indicates that after the signal was given and the accused was apprehended red-handed after having received the money, all of them went to the office of the accused where further procedures were completed. According to the investigating authority, PW.4, the money was taken out of the drawer of the accused and handed over to the said witness. This is totally contrary and it is not consistent with the evidence of either PW.2 or PW.1 nor is the evidence of PW.2 consistent with the evidence of others. Therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution had proved the fact of the money having been received by the accused at all, let alone the categorical statement of the complainant himself that it was never demanded and it was never voluntarily received by the accused and it was thrust into his pocket. Therefore, the gravamen of the charge is one of the accused having demanded and received the bribe, which is the primary ingredient that the prosecution would have to prove to bring home the charge in respect of offences punishable under the relevant sections referred to hereinabove. Therefore, he would submit that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt and further, the appellant, who has attained the age of superannuation is in the evening of his life and if the conviction is allowed to stand, he faces the ignominy of spending his retirement in prison and given the nature of the evidence in the present case, would be a travesty of justice and hence would seek that the judgment of the trial court be set aside.