BAIRAM MURALIDHAR Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was convicted for demanding bribe of Rs.5,000.00 for doing official favour of facilitating PW1 to go back to Dubai without implicating him in the kidnapping case. Further, the bribe was demanded to reduce the gravity of case against his son who was involved in crime No.21/2006 of Kamareddy Police Station for kidnapping.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 1/2/2006, a complaint was lodged against the son of the defacto complainant (PW1) by one Radhakrishna Murthy alleging that his daughter was kidnapped. On the basis of the said complaint, the appellant who was working as Sub-Inspector of Police arrested the son of PW1 on 7/2/2006. Nearly 2 1/2 months thereafter on 22/4/2006, PW1 returned to India and went to the Police Station. One of the Constable who was not examined in the Court asked for bribe of Rs.6,000.00 for not adding the name of PW1 in the charge sheet to be filed against his son. Thereafter, the appellant demanded Rs.5,000.00 on 26/4/2006 and asked PW1 to pay the said amount by 4/5/2006. Aggrieved by the said demand of bribe, PW1 and PW2 who is the cousin of PW1, gave a complaint Ex.P1 on 1/5/2006 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Nizamabad. PW1 was asked to appear before the DSP along with the proposed bribe amount on 4/5/2006. On 4/5/2006 after verifying the antecedents of appellant, the crime was registered. PW2 accompanied PW1 to the office of DSP on the date of trap. PW3 an independent mediator and another person were asked to act as mediators to the trap. In the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, the first Mediators report which was marked as Ex.P5 was drafted after completing the formalities, before proceeding to trap the appellant. What all transpired in the office of the DSP, was incorporated in the mediator's report Ex.P5.

(3.) On the same day at 4.30 P.M., the trap party members, PW1 to PW3, DSP and others went to the Police Station where the appellant was working as SI. The DSP instructed PWs.1 and 2 to go into the Police Station and give bribe amount to the accused on demand. Accordingly, PW1 and PW2 went into the Police Station. However, they were asked to meet the appellant at the R and B Guest House in Kamareddy in the evening at 10.00 P.M. The trap party again reached the guest house premises at 10 PM. PWs.1 and 2 went inside and on demand PW1 handed over the tainted bribe amount to appellant. After passing of the amount, PW2 went outside and gave pre-arranged signal. The trap party entered into the police station accosted the appellant and conducted test on the hands of the appellant. The test on the hands of the appellant proved positive. The CD file relating to Crime No.21/2006 of Kamareddy Police which was registered under Sec. 366-A of Indian Penal Code, against the son of PW1 was seized. Having completed the post trap proceedings, mediators report was drafted.