LAWS(KAR)-2013-9-241

HANUMANTAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Decided On September 27, 2013
HANUMANTAPPA Appellant
V/S
State Of Karnataka By Lokayukta Police Station Represented By State Public Prosecutor Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Special Public Prosecutor. The facts of the case are as follows: One Satish K Kattimani, a resident of Dharwad, had approached the Karnataka Lokayukta Police on 31.03.2006 at about 12.30 hours and had filed a complaint alleging that, he was a Jail Warden and a site bearing No. LIG 29 at Doddnayakankoppa, Third Stage, was allotted to him by the Karnataka Housing Board, Hubli (hereinafter referred to as 'KHB', for brevity), and even though the amount towards the price of the site was to be paid in four installments, he had paid the entire price of the site as on 22.03.2006 and was making enquiries about the sale deed to be executed by the KHB in respect of the site. The Assistant Executive Engineer concerned, had told him to meet the case worker, who was the present accused, and when the complainant enquired with him about the execution of the sale deed, a bribe of Rs. 1,200/ - was demanded to expedite the same. The complainant was not inclined to pay any such bribe. He had, however, negotiated the same and it was scaled down to Rs. 500/ -. It was in this background, that a complaint was lodged, pursuant to which the Lokayukta police took measures to trap the appellant red handed, while receiving such amount. Therefore, elaborate preparations had been made to trap the accused and a successful trap followed, on the basis of which, the appellant was charge sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.C. Act', for brevity). The appellant having been charge sheeted and charges having been framed, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded and the accused having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses and marked documents Exhibits P1 to P45, apart from 18 material. objects. After hearing the parties, the Court below had framed the following points for consideration:

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant would take this Court through the record and would extensively canvas several grounds urged in the appeal. The primary contention being that, the prosecution had failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard, he would take this Court through the evidence of PW1 and PW2, and would point out that, PW1 was the complainant and PW2 was the shadow witness. The evidence of these two witnesses, unless was consistent and that the evidence of the shadow witness corroborated the evidence of the complainant, it cannot be said that, the prosecution could sustain its case and it would not be possible for the Court below to have concluded that, the charges against the accused were proved beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, when these two witnesses were examined, there was a total contradiction between their evidence and PW2, in fact, had been treated as hostile witness and had been cross -examined by the prosecution itself. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 not having been corroborated by the evidence of PW2, the primary ingredient of an offence punishable under Section 13(2) cannot be said to have been established. In this regard, the Counsel would point out that, PW1, in his deposition in examination -in -chief, had stated that, he along with PW2, went to the office of the accused, he met the accused and on his asking for the amount, he paid Rs. 500/ - from his pocket and that, accused had received the amount by his hands and kept in the left hand side pocket of his shirt and further stated that, PW2 was standing behind him all the time and after receiving his signal, the Investigating Officer and his staff had come inside and arrested the accused. PW2 in total contradiction, had stated that, on reaching the office of the accused, PW1 went inside and met the accused and that, he was standing at some distance from them and he could see PW1 was talking with the accused, but could not hear the conversation, but he saw the PW1 handing over the tainted currency notes to the accused and the accused kept it in the pocket of his shirt, but in the same breadth, he also states thereafter that, he along with the police party had rushed into the office. Hence the statement of the complainant that, the shadow witness was behind him all the time, is completely disbelieved by the evidence of the prosecution itself. Further, PW2 had stated that, there was a window near the door and it is through the window, that he had seen the complainant handing over the tainted money to the accused. In this regard, as regards the existence of any window, there is inconsistency in the sketch prepared at the spot, where the accused was taken into custody. In that, Ex.P43, was a rough sketch' prepared by the Investigating Officer of the location of the windows, through which PW2 is allegedly said to have seen the act of the complainant handing over the bribe amount to the accused. However, in Ex.P43, there is no such window depicted. It is only in Ex.P44, that the window is shown to have existed. Of these two exhibits, Ex.P44 was prepared by the Engineer, whereas P43 was a rough sketch prepared by the Investigating Officer. There is no fault on the part of the prosecution to establish this inconsistency. Both the exhibits were marked through the medium of Investigating Officer, when he was examined as PW7 and hence the statement of PW2 that, he had seen the act of complainant handing over the bribe amount through the window cannot be readily acceptable. It is these above discrepancies, which the learned Counsel would highlight in contending that, the prosecution had not established its case beyond all reasonable doubt.