Karnataka High Court

T. Venkatesh vs State Of Karnataka on 19 July, 2023

Bench: K.Natarajan

                             1


    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.306 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

T. VENKATESH
S/O. A. CHIKKA THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
JUNIOR ENGINNER (E), SECTION OFFICER,
SOLADEVANAHALLI BRANCH UNIT,
BESCOM, BENGALURU,
AT PRESENT: EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE)
RT. ADDL. DIVISION, KPTCL,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 010.

R/AT NO.116/2,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
ANJANA NAGAR,
OPP: HP PETROL BUNK,
BENGALURU-560 091.
                                                ... APPELLANT
       (BY SRI VISHNU MURTHY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY POLICE STATION,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE WING,
CITY DIVISION,
BENGALURU-560 001.

REPRESENTED BY
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OFFICE AT
                               2


M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001
                                                ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, SPECIAL COUNSEL
 FOR LOKAYUKTA)

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
04.02.2017 PASSED BY THE XXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU URBAN DIST.,
BENGALURU     IN   SPL.C.C.NO.98/2012   -  CONVICTING    THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 7 AND 13(1)(d) READ WITH SECTION 13(2) OF
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT.

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 7.7.2023 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED
THE FOLLOWING:


                      JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant-accused under

Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the judgment of

conviction and sentence passed by the XXIII Additional City

Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru in

Special C.C.No.98/2012 for having found the appellant guilty,

convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default,

he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the

offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'P.C. Act') and further

sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one

year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of

fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month for

the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with

Section 13(2) of P.C. Act.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

learned Special counsel for the respondent-State.

3. The rank of the parties before the Trial Court is

retained for the sake of convenience.

4. The case of the prosecution is that the accused said

to be the Junior Engineer (Electrical), Section Officer,

Soladevanahalli Brach Unit, BESCOM, Bengaluru being a public

servant demanded illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/- for not

taking action against the defacto-complainant for illegal electric

connection obtained by the defacto-complainant and further

demanded Rs.5,000/- for giving new connection on

31.12.2007. After receipt of the complaint from PW.1-

Hanumantharaju, a case in Crime No.57/2007 was registered,

subsequently, a trap was conducted and when the accused

accepting the bribe amount, he was caught red handed.

Accordingly, the Police arrested the accused and after

investigation, filed the charge-sheet. The trial Court after

securing the presence of the accused, framed the charges, the

accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Accordingly,

the prosecution, in all examined 7 witnesses as per PWs.1 to 7,

got marked 23 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.23 and 8

Material Objects as per M.Os.1 to 8 and after closing of the

evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The case of the accused was one of the

total denial, but not led any evidence. After hearing the

arguments, the trial Court found the accused guilty, convicted

and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as stated above.

Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this

Court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has

strenuously contended that the judgment of the trial Court is

not sustainable under the law as there is no date of demand

made by the accused for having received Rs.4,000/- and there

is no direct demand from the complainant and as per the

complaint- Ex.P.1, the accused said to be demanded

Rs.5,000/- through one contractor Ramu and even at the time

of seizure, it is instructed by the said Ramu-PW.5 for making

payment of Rs.3,000/- to the accused and Rs.2,000/-for

himself and the said Ramu turned hostile, not supported the

prosecution case.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent further

contended that there is no work pending with the appellant at

the time of seizure of the cash and the appellant refused to

receive any money and he has instructed to put up the stone

compound, they came by filing the application and there is no

application filed by the complainant to show the work is

pending with the appellant-accused.

7. The learned counsel further contended that the

accused has not received the money, it was kept on the table

of the accused by the complainant at the instruction of the

contractor- Ramu. He has not touched the cash, in fact the

accused pushed the cash by the side, therefore, it is

contended, there is no acceptance of bribe. PW.2 also treated

as partly hostile. The money was kept on the table and he has

not stated the amount was received by the accused and

counted it, but PW.1 was stated that the accused counted the

cash. There is contradiction in the evidence of both the

witnesses.

8. The learned counsel also contended that even on

perusal of the sanction, it was accorded by PW.3 who is not the

Sanctioning Authority, the BESCOM Board alone has authorized

to grant sanction and even otherwise, the Board Resolution

passed and authorization was received by PW.3 only on

04.05.2012, but prior to that, the sanction was accorded on

29.02.2012 itself, therefore, it is not a valid sanction. In a

similar case, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court acquitted the

appellant. The learned counsel further contended that there are

inconsistency in the evidence of witnesses. The demand,

acceptance and work pending were all not proved by the

prosecution. Therefore, prayed for allowing the appeal.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent has

contended that sanction order i.e., Ex.P.14 has been issued by

PW.3 after the resolution passed by the Board. The resolution

was passed on 16.01.2012, therefore, the sanction accorded on

29.12.2012. The order reached on 04.05.2012, it is only

intimation, therefore, the sanction is proper. The Sanctioning

Authority by considering the relevant documents, accorded the

sanction.

10. The learned counsel for the respondent further

contended that in respect of work pending, the accused already

received Rs.4,000/- for not taking any legal action against the

complainant and demanded Rs.5,000/- for regularization of the

electric connection and thereafter, PW.5 and the complainant

approached the accused, when the amount was paid, the

accused received it, his hands were washed and turned into

pink. Therefore, the work was pending with the accused is

authority to give connection of electricity. Even otherwise,

PW.5 informed the complainant the accused is demanding

money, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no demand.

PW.2 is only partly hostile, that is not much relevant. The

amount recovered from the accused, his hands were washed

through sodium carbonate solution which turned into pink,

therefore, even if PW.5 turned hostile, that will not fatal to the

prosecution case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the

case of NEERAJ DUTTA Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF

DELHI) reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1724 that even the

circumstantial evidence can be relied upon for convicting the

accused. Hence, prayed for dismissing the appeal.

11. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the

records, the points that arise for my consideration are:

      "1)   Whether    the    prosecution    proves       beyond
            reasonable       doubt    that    the         accused
            demanded     and    received     Rs.4,000/-      and
            further   demanded       Rs.5,000/-     for    giving
            electricity connection to the PW.1 and he
            was trapped when he was accepting bribe



            and he has misused the official position

being a public servant, thereby, committed the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of P.C. Act?

2) Whether the judgment of the trial Court call for any interference?"

12. On perusal of the evidence on record and on

hearing the arguments on both the sides, in order to appreciate

the evidence on record, it is worth to mention the evidence

adduced by the prosecution before the Trial Court.

(a) PW.1-Hanumantha Raju has deposed that he has

taken unauthorized electric connection to his bore well pump

set in the year 2007 in Sy.No.23 of Somashettihalli Village. The

accused visited the land for inspection and told that he will file

complaint against him to the Vigilance and the accused

demanded Rs.4,000/- as bribe through contractor for not

lodging the complaint against him and he had sent Rs.4,000/-

through contractor-PW.5. He further deposes that the accused

demanded Rs.5,000/- through contractor and he is not willing

to pay the bribe, hence, lodge the complaint. Subsequently, he

has produced Rs.5,000/- i.e., 10 currency notes of Rs.500/-

denomination. The police smeared the powder and through

PW.3, counted the notes and kept in his T-Shirt pocket, then

hands of the accused were washed which turned into pink and

they have explained the procedure of trap to the accused and

taken the photographs of the same. He has identified the

Ex.P.1 is complaint and Exs.P.2 to P.6 are photographs. Ex.P.7

is Demo panchanama.

PW.1 further deposes that at 3.00 p.m., the police along

with panchas went to the office of the accused, vehicle was

parked little long distance, He himself, Ravikumar and a

shadow witness approached the accused and later, called

PW.5-contractor, he came to the spot within half an hour, then

he went to the office of the accused, there were so many

people present, hence, he came out, once again he went

inside, at that time, the accused informed that he is very busy

and asked to put up a compound wall around the bore well.

Then after 5 minutes, once again, the complainant, Ravikumar-

PW.2 and Ramu-PW.5 went inside the office, then P.W.5-Ramu

told to give Rs.2,000/- for him and Rs.3,000/- for the accused

so that he will speak to the accused. Then, PW.1 informed

PW.5 that he will pay the money to the accused first and

thereafter, he pay will pay the money to him. Then he paid

Rs.5,000/- to the accused as per the instruction of PW.5, the

accused counted the same and kept on the table, then he gave

signal to the police, accordingly, the police came and trapped

the accused. His hands were washed which turned into pink,

the amount was kept on the table which were recovered. The

police took the photographs as per Exs.P.8 to P.11 and

prepared the panchanama as per Ex.P.12. He has identified the

seized bottles containing the solutions which are as per M.Os.1

to 3 and the cash as per M.O.7. Then the accused was

arrested, brought to the police station and he identified the

accused in the Court.

(b) PW.2-R.Ravikuamr deposes that on 31.12.2007, he

was summoned to the Lokayuktha Police Station and

introduced the complainant-Hanumantha Raju in respect of the

complaint. The Hanumantha Raju paid 10 currency notes of

Rs.500/- denomination. Then the powder was smeared on the

currency notes and thereafter, that amount was kept in the

pocket of PW.1 and all of them went to the office of the

accused. He also identified Ex.P.7 is the Demo Panchanama

and further deposes that when they reached the office of the

accused, himself and PW.1 went near the office, the others

stood outside. The contractor-Ramu also came within half an

hour. Then himself, the contractor and PW.1 went inside the

office, then, the contractor-Ramu and the accused came

outside. Then the accused told the complainant that he is very

busy and he asked the complainant to put up compound wall

around the bore well and then come back. He further deposes

that after 5 minutes, himself, the complainant and Ramu went

inside the office of the accused and the contractor told that this

witness is relative and then, the contractor told the

complainant to give money and the amount was kept on the

table and the amount was pushed by the accused by the side.

The accused took the cash in his hands and kept it on the side

of the table, then the accused went away by speaking in his

phone. By that time, the police apprehended the accused, then

his hands were washed, both the hands turned into pink, then

the same was seized under the panchanama. The photographs

were taken, he has identified the panchanama as per Ex.P.12.

This witness treated as party hostile and in the cross

examination, he has stated that he has counted the cash and

kept on the table.

that on 03.12.2011, he received requisition from police for

according sanction against the accused to prosecute along with

the documents, the same was placed before the KPTCL Board

on 16.01.2012. 13 Board members verified the documents and

authorized him to give sanction. Accordingly, on 29.02.2012,

he had accorded the sanction as per Ex.P.14.

(d) PW.4-Prakash G Patil, Assistant Engineer has

summoned to the Police Station by the Lokayuktha on

31.12.2007 where the PW.1 as well as PW.2 was introduced

and the complainant paid Rs.5,000/-. The currency note

numbers were mentioned in a paper, the same is identified as

Ex.P.16, then, a phenolphthalein powder smeared on the

notes, then his hands were washed which turned into pink, the

same is collected in the bottle. He has identified those solutions

as M.Os.1 and 5. Then the police instructed the complainant to

pay the bribe money only on the demand made by the

accused. They prepared the panchanama as per Ex.P.7 and

also taken photographs as per Exs.P.2 to P.6. He further

deposes that thereafter, all of them went to the office of the

accused, PWs.1 and 2 went inside the office of the accused and

after sometime, they gave signal, then the police apprehended

the accused. PW.1 informed that he has given money to the

accused, but the accused denied the same and the amount was

recovered from the table and confirmed the currency note

numbers. The police washed the hands which turned into pink

and they seized the solution bottle as per M.Os.2 and 3. They

took the photographs as per Exs.P.8 to P.11. The accused

given explanation as per Ex.P.13. The sample seal given to him

and identified as M.O.6. The trap panchanama prepared as per

Ex.P.12.

(e) PW.5-Ramaiah, Electrical Contractor who supposed

to speak that the accused demanded bribe through him and he

accompanied the complainant and at his instruction, the

amount was paid by the complainant, but this witness totally

turned hostile, not supported the prosecution case. In the cross

examination, he has denied the statement made to the

Investigating Officer as per EX.P.18. Therefore, his evidence is

not useful to the prosecution case.

(f) PW.6-Prasanna P Raju is the Police Inspector who

received the complaint, investigated the matter and filed the

charge sheet. According to his evidence, he received the

complaint from PW.1 as per Ex.P.1 and registered the FIR.

Then PW.1 gave currency notes and the currency note numbers

were noted in Ex.P.16 and he has demonstrated the trap

proceedings, prepared the demo panchanama, then, he took

the team for trapping the accused. At 5.45 p.m., the

complainant gave signal, then, he went and caught the

accused, seized the cash, then made to wash the right hand of

the accused which turned into pink, then he seized the same

under Article 4 which is marked as M.O.2. He also washed the

left hand of the accused which also turned into pink and seized

the solution under M.O.3. Then compared the currency note

numbers with Ex.P.16 and identified the cash as per M.O.7,

then he prepared the detailed panchanama as per Ex.P.12 and

obtained the explanation from the accused as per Ex.P.13,

prepared the rough sketch as per Ex.P.19, arrested the

accused and after the investigation, filed the charge sheet.

13. On appreciation of evidence of the prosecution

witnesses, especially in respect of demand made by the

accused, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs.1, 2,

4 and 5. PW.1-the complainant deposed in his evidence that he

has taken unauthorized electric connection for his motor to his

bore well in the year 2007. The accused came there for

inspection and told that he will file complaint against him to the

Vigilance and he has demanded Rs.4,000/- through the

contractor for not giving complaint against him. Therefore, he

has paid Rs.4,000/- to the accused through PW.5-Electric

contractor, then in order to take the regular electric

connection, the accused demanded Rs.5,000/-, therefore, he

lodged the complaint. Whereas, in his complaint- Ex.P.1, he

has stated that the accused came to the spot, demanded and

received Rs.4,000/- from him for not filing the complaint and

he has demanded Rs.5,000/- for fresh connection of the

electricity. But the PW.1 not stated that on which date the

accused visited the spot and made demand of Rs.4,000/- as

bribe and received. That apart, in the complaint-Ex.P.1, PW.1

says that he has paid Rs.4,000/- to the accused directly on the

spot, but in the evidence, he has stated, the accused

demanded Rs.4,000/- to be sent through electrical contractor,

accordingly he has sent Rs.4,000/- through electrical

contractor-PW.5, but PW.5 turned hostile and not supported

the prosecution case. There is contradiction in respect of

demand and acceptance of Rs.4,000/- from PW.1 by accused

and no date mentioned, whether the amount of Rs.4,000/-

directly paid to accused or through PW.5. Therefore, the factum

of demand and acceptance of Rs.4,000/- by accused is not

proved by the prosecution.

14. As regards to the demand of Rs.5,000/- by the

accused, PW.1 deposed that the accused demanded Rs.5,000/-

through the electrical contractor-PW.5 for giving fresh

connection. Even in Ex.P.1, he has stated that the accused

demanded Rs.5,000/- through PW.5 as bribe for giving fresh

connection. PW.5-Electrical contractor turned hostile and he

has not supported the case of the prosecution that the demand

made by accused through PW.5. PW.2 in his evidence has not

stated that the accused demanded Rs.5,000/- through the

PW.5. PW.4 also not stated that the accused demanded

Rs.5,000/- from PW.1 through PW.5. Therefore, except the

evidence of PW.1, no one have stated about the demand made

by the accused for Rs.5,000/- as bribe through PW.5.

15. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the

appellant that there is no demand made by the accused from

the PW.1 for bribe and contended that even when the accused

only directed the complainant to send the application through

electrical contractor and the electrical contractor-PW.5 turned

hostile, not supported the prosecution case and there is no

direct demand made by the accused from the PW.1 and

considering the evidence of the PW.1, he has also stated that

the accused demanded Rs.5,000/- through the PW.5. PWs.2

and 4 who are the panch witnesses also not stated that the

accused demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/- from PW.1. Therefore

the factum of demand of Rs.5,000/- was not proved by the

prosecution.

16. As regards to the pendency of the work,

admittedly, there is no records seized from the accused and

from the evidence of PW.1, the accused asked him to file an

application for electric connection through the electrical

contractor and PW.1 also admitted that he has not filed any

application either himself or through PW.5. Therefore, as on

the date of incident of trap, there is no work pending with the

accused.

17. As regards to the acceptance of the bribe and trap

by the police, PW.1 has stated that after lodging the complaint,

he along with PW.2 shadow witness and police went to the

office of the accused wherein PWs.1 and 2 went inside the

office, there were so many persons present, therefore, they

waited for sometime, later, PW.1 called PW.5-electric

contractor to the spot and they went to the office of the

accused, the accused told to put up the compound wall around

the bore well, then file application, thereafter he will consider

and saying that he sent back the complainant. Later, PW.5 said

to be told that he has spoken with the accused and took PWs.1

and 2 inside the office and the PW.5 instructed PW.1 to give

Rs.2,000/- for him (i.e., for PW.5) and Rs.3,000/- to the

accused and PW.1 tried to give the money to the accused but

the accused pushed the money towards the table and kept it on

the table which reveals, the accused not demanded the bribe

amount from PW.1, whereas, PW.5 instructed PW.1 to give the

money, but PW.5 turned hostile. As per the evidence of PW.6-

Investigating Officer and PW.1 as well as PW.2, the IO

instructed to PW.1 that the amount shall be paid to the accused

only on his demand. But on perusal of the evidence of PWs.1

and 2, there is no such demand made by the accused except

PW.1 tried to hand over the money to the accused, but he has

pushed the money towards the table and the amount was kept

on the table by PW.1. If at all, the accused demanded money

from PW.1, he could have received it and kept it in is pocket or

kept it inside the drawer, but when the amount was kept on

the table, he pushed it aside and not actually accepted the

money and the accused went outside even without taking the

said money and then the police came inside, apprehended the

accused and recovered the money from the table which

reveals, even the accused not accepted the money, but it was

kept by PW.1 on the table by force and the accused refused to

receive the same and pushed the money. The evidence of

PWs.1 and 2 also defers from each other that the amount was

received and counted by the accused. If at all the evidence of

PWs.1 and 2 is believable and as per the instruction of the

PW.5, Rs.3,000/- could have taken by the accused and

Rs.2,000/- could have given to PW.5, but he has not at all

accepted the same. On the other hand, he directed the

complainant to put up the compound wall around the bore well

first and then asked to file the application in order to give the

electricity connection. As stated above, PW.5 totally turned

hostile. In support of the contention, the accused also given

statement on explanation stating that he refused to receive the

money and asked the complainant to file application first. He

also explained in Ex.P.13 that they want to forcefully give the

money, but he kept the said amount on the table and went

outside for attending the nature call. The explanation of the

accused is probable and acceptable one which corroborates

with the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 that the amount was seized

from the table but not from the possession of the accused.

18. Though the hand wash of the accused said to be

turned into pink, but on seeing the facts and circumstances of

the case, he has not accepted the bribe amount. Even

otherwise, the amount is recovered from the accused without

demand, it cannot be constitute the offence under Section 7 of

the P.C. Act.

19. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

K Shanthamma vs. The State of Telangana reported in

2022 LIveLaw (SC) 192, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

held mere recovery of the amount, without demand, the

accused cannot be found guilty under Section 7 or 13 of the

P.C. Act. The demand and acceptance are sine quo non for

establishing the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. The

similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of R.P.S. Yadav vs. CBI in Crl.A.No.9/2012 dated

28.01.2015 where it is held as under:

"Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 7, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) Prosecution version that accused who was a Municipal employer demanded Rs.1500/- from complainant as a consideration of issue of Tailoring licence - Trap was laid - At the time of trap accused asked the complainant to hand over the money to one 'J' - Money was

accordingly handed over to 'J' from whom the money was recovered - No evidence that handed over the money to accused - Accused acquitted - Held."

20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another judgment in

the case of Jagtar Singh vs. State of Punjab in

Crl.A.No.2136/2010 has taken similar view and acquitted the

appellant. Therefore in my view, the prosecution has failed to

prove the demand and acceptance and work pending with the

accused.

21. As regards to the sanction accorded by PW.3 that

the Board of Directors authorized PW.3 to issue sanction,

admittedly, the meeting was held on 16.01.2012 and

authorization letter was delivered to PW.3 only on 4.5.2012,

but prior to receiving the authorization, PW.3 issued the

sanction on 29.02.2012 itself and PW.3 is not a competent

authority to accord sanction. Admittedly, the sanction issued by

PW.3 on 29.02.2012 without receiving the authorization which

was only received on 4.5.2012. In a similar circumstances, the

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court acquitted the appellant in

Crl.A.No.1342/2017 dated 12.12.2017 and held at paragraph

No.

".......Apart from that, even looking to the other material, i.e., the evidence of PW.3, the person examined in this connection with the issuance of the sanction order is one Muddu Mohan. No doubt in examination-in-chief, he deposed that on 03.12.2012 he received the requisition in their office for issuance of the sanction order and it was accompanied by all the materials as deposed in his evidence, in default, the said materials were placed before the KPTCL Board on 16.01.2012, and the Board as per the majority of 15:13 verified the documents in detail and prima facie as it appeared there is involvement of the accused person in demanding the bribe amount for prosecution of the said case, he was authorized by the Board and in view of the said authorization, he issued the sanction order dated 01.03.2012. He has sent the sanction order Ex.P3 and his signature as Ex.P3A and the proceedings of the Board as per Ex.P4. In the cross examination, he denied the suggestion that on 22.03.2012, KPTCL board authorized him to

issue the sanction order but he deposed that on 16.01.2012, he was authorized to issue the sanction order. But in the very next sentence he admitted that on 22.03.2012, the proceedings of the Board were issued authorizing him to issue the sanction order. When the authorization itself is on 22.03.2012 by the Board to PW.3, how he issued the sanction order much earlier i.e., on 01.03.2012 is to be examined........"

22. In view of the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench

of this Court, the sanction order issued on 29.02.2012 prior to

receiving the authorization on 4.5.2012 and PW.3 also not

properly verified the documents and applied his mind while

granting sanction to prosecute and the sanction is invalid

sanction. Therefore, on this ground also the prosecution failed

to establish the case against the accused beyond reasonable

doubt.

23. Therefore, I am of the view, the Trial Court has

committed error in holding the appellant guilty and convincing

and hence, the judgment of the Trial Court required to be

interfered by this Court and the judgment is liable to be set