V. RAJAGOPALAIAH AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28.01.2010 passed by the Spl.Judge and III Addl. District and Sessions Judge Mysore in Spl. Case No.152/2001.

(2.) The appellants challenged legality and correctness of the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court on the grounds that it is opposed to law, facts and probabilities in the case. The Court below has wrongly relied on the evidence, which is unreliable and inadmissible. The Court below ought to have held that PW-1/Complainant is highly interested and partisan witness. In the absence of testimony of shadow witness, who could have furnished corroboration, the conviction and sentence is bad in law. The Trial Court erred in holding that testimony of PW-1 has been corroborated by the evidence of PWs-2 and 3, who are not the independent witnesses and who have not spoken about demand or acceptance of bribe. The testimony of PW-1 with regard to alleged demand by accused No.1 is highly unreliable and unnatural. It is significant to note that, by the time alleged demand was made, registration of document has been done and another document of some other person has also been registered. In that view of the matter, it is impossible and unnatural that accused No.1 has made the demand after doing the work. It is equally unnatural that appellant No.1 would either enhance the quantum of the bribe amount or would direct the payment of bribe amount to accused No.2 infront of the public. No amount was found in the person of accused No.1 or any amount was recovered from accused No.1. The Court ought to have held that non-examination of Madamma, who is the vendor, is fatal to prosecution case. The judgment of conviction is bad in law, as there is no valid sanction and the person, who issued the sanction has not been examined. The appellant/accused No.2 is not a public servant and it is not the prosecution case that money was collected by him to induce the public servant for an official act. The sentence imposed by the Trial Court is unduly severe. Hence, sought to allow the appeal and to set-aside the judgment and order under appeal.

(3.) Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused and also the learned Spl.PP for the respondent