Karnataka High Court
Manmathayya S/O Murgayya Pujari vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8917
CRL.A No. 200093 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 200099 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200093/2017
C/w
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200099/2017
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200093/2017
BETWEEN:
MANMATHAYYYA
S/O: MURGAYYA PUJARI,
AGE: 63 YEARS,
OCC: RETD. REVENUE INSPECTOR,
R/O: KHERDA-B,
TQ: BASAVAKALYAN,
Digitally signed by DIST: BIDAR.
RAMESH ...APPELLANT
MATHAPATI
Location: High
Court of (BY SRI.SHARANABASAPPA K.BABSHETTY, ADVOCATE)
Karnataka
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THORUGH LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION,
KALABURAGI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, SPL.PP)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8917
CRL.A No. 200093 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 200099 of 2017
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.27 OF PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 R/W 374 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
SENTENCE DATED 01.07.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, KALABURAGI, IN S.C.NO.5/2012 AND
ACQUIT THE APPELLANT.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200099/2017
BETWEEN:
DILEEP
S/O: JANARDHANRAO KULKARNI,
AGE: 61 YEARS,
OCC: RTD. VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT MOGHA,
R/O: PLOT NO.57, KARUNESHWAR NAGAR,
NEAR RAM MANDIR, KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.AVINASH A.UPLOANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE THORUGH
LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION,
KALABURAGI, DIST: KALABURAGI,
NOW REP. BY SPL. PP LOKAYUKTA,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT KALABURAGI BENCH.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, SPL.PP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 374(2) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED
01.07.2017 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
KALABURAGI, IN S.C.NO.5/2012 AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8917
CRL.A No. 200093 of 2017
C/W CRL.A No. 200099 of 2017
JUDGMENT
These two appeals are filed by the accused Nos.1 and
2 in Special Case No.5/2012 before the learned Principal
Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi, whereby the accused No.1
was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 7
and 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and accused No.2 was convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The parties shall be referred to as per their
ranking before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The brief facts of the case are as below:
PW.1-the complainant Basavaraj lodged a complaint
before the Lokayukta Police, Kalaburagi, alleging that the
land bearing Sy.No.352/1 measuring 3 acres 19 guntas
situated at Mogha village was belonging to his father, but
the record of rights shows the name of his father's
brother's children i.e., Sharanappa and Revansiddappa.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8917
Therefore, there was necessity for deleting the names of
said Sharanappa and Revansiddappa, as they had no right
title or interest over the same. Therefore, he obtained an
application from his father on 03.10.2009. He visited
Tahsildar, Chincholi and submitted his application. The
Tahsildar informed the complainant-PW.1 that he should
approach the village accountant. Accordingly, PW.1 came
and met accused No.1-Dileep, who was the village
accountant and for considerable long time he did not
attend to the application of the complainant. After several
visits, accused No.1 informed that it is not an easy job to
effect the deletion of the names from records and he need
to obtain the approval of the Revenue Inspector and there
is no need to spend money for it. He demanded a sum of
Rs.2,000/- and on questioning, it was informed to PW.1
that mistake has occurred in the computers and even then
there would be expenses of Rs.2,000/-. Thereafter, on
29.12.2009, PW.1 visited the Lokayuka Police Station and
Investigating Officer had given a small tape recorder and
along with tape recorder, he visited accused No.1 on
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8917
31.12.2009 and when the accused No.1 demanded a sum
of Rs.1,800/-, it was negotiated to Rs.1,500/- and since he
did not have money on that day, he returned with the tape
recorder and lodged a complaint to the Lokayukta police
on 12.01.2010.
On the basis of the said complaint, the Lokayukta
Police have registered a case in Crime No.1/2010 for the
offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) r/w Section
13(2) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
After securing the presence of the two witnesses, PW.1
produced three currency notes of Rs.500/- and a
demonstration panchanama was prepared as per Ex.P16.
A trap was laid on the accused No.1. The accused could
not be contacted on 12.01.2010 and therefore again trap
was laid on 18.01.2010 and a demonstration mahazar was
prepared as per Ex.P18 and after trap the tainted currency
notes were recovered from the possession of the accused
No.1 in the presence of pancha witnesses. The accused
No.1 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8917
Thereafter, accused No.2 was arrested and remanded to
judicial custody.
4. After completion of the trap procedure and
arrest of accused No.1, accused No.2 was arrested on
31.05.2011 and both the accused were released on bail.
The investigating officer recorded the statement of the
witnesses, sent the seized articles for the FSL examination
and after obtaining the sanction from the Deputy
Commissioner who was the authorized person to sanction
the prosecution, the investigating officer filed the charge
sheet against the accused. The learned Special Judge took
cognizance of the offences and registered the case. On
securing the accused and furnishing the copies of the
charge sheet papers to them and hearing them, the
charges were framed and read over to the accused. The
accused pleaded not guilty and therefore case went into
trial.
5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution examined 9 witnesses as PWs.1 to 9 and
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8917
Exs.P1 to 41 and MOs.1 to 13 were marked in evidence.
The statements of the accused under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. were recorded. Both the accused have submitted
their written statement stating that they had never
demanded or accepted the bribe from the complainant-
PW.1 and no work of the complainant was pending before
them.
6. After hearing the arguments by the learned Spl.
Public Prosecutor and the learned counsels appearing for
the accused, the learned Trial Judge framed the following
points for consideration;
1. Whether the prosecution proves that
sanction accorded prosecute the accused is
valid?
2. Whether the prosecution proves that
accused being public servants working as
Village Accountant of Mogha and Revenue
Inspector of Kodli demanded illegal
gratification of Rs.2,000/- from the
complainant Basavaraj Kalla for rectification
of record of rights pertaining to survey
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8917
No.352/1 by deleting the names of CWs. 15
and 16, and on 18.01.2010 at 01.45 p.m.
in a rented house situated at Patel colony of
Chandapur received or obtained the illegal
gratification of Rs. 1,500/- from the
complainant - Basavaraj Kalla as a motive
or reward for doing the aforesaid work and
thereby committed an offence punishable
under Section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves
that on the above said date, time and place
accused being public servants abused their
official position, as such obtained
themselves a pecuniary advantage to the
tune of Rs. 1,500/- from the complainant -
Basavaraj Kalla by demanding and
accepting the same as illegal gratification
and thereby committed an offence of
criminal misconduct under Section 13 (1)
(d) punishable under Section 13 (2) of the
Prevention Corruption Act, 1988?
4. Whether the prosecution further proves
that accused No.2 being the Revenue
Inspector abetted the accused No.1 Dilip to
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8917
demand and accept illegal gratification from
the complainant, in pursuance of such ап
abetment accused No. 1 committed the
offence punishable under Section 7 of PC
Act and thereby the accused No.2
committed an offence punishable under
Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988?
5. What order?
7. Answering the point Nos.1 to 4 in the
affirmative, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were convicted for
the charges leveled against them. The accused No.1 was
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for a period of six months and shall pay a
fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall
undergo further imprisonment for a period of one month
and further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a
period of one and shall pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the
offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8917
the Prevention of Corruption Act with default sentences.
The accused No.2 sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- for
the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act and imprisonment of one year and pay a
fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section
12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act with default
sentences. The sentences imposed on accused Nos.1 and
2 were suspended.
8. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction
and sentences, the accused No.1 has approached this
Court in Criminal Appeal No.200099/2017 and accused
No.2 has approached this Court in Criminal Appeal
No.200093/2017.
9. On being issued with notice, the respondent-
State has appeared through the learned Spl. Public
Prosecutor and the accused have appeared through their
respective counsel. The appeals were admitted and the
trial Court records was secured.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8917
10. The arguments by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants/accused and learned
Spl.Public Prosecutor for Lokayukta are heard.
11. The case of the prosecution as it unfurls from
the charge sheet papers is that an application filed by
PW.1-complainant was referred to the accused Nos.1 and
2 for the report by the Tahsildar. The accused Nos.1 and
2 were not sending the report concerning the deletion of
names of the cousins of PW.1 and for that purpose they
had demanded a sum of Rs.2,000/-. After negotiation, the
bribe money was fixed at Rs.1,500/- and PW.1 lodged a
complaint to the Lokayukta police. It is the case of the
prosecution that on 12.01.2010 a trap was laid after
following the procedures but the accused No.1 could not
be met by PW.1 on that day. Therefore, PW.1 and the
entire team of Investigating Officer returned back and a
mahazar was conducted after their return as per Ex.P17.
Then again a trap was laid on 18.01.2010. PWs.2 and 3
were the witnesses who had accompanied the team of the
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8917
Investigating Officer and PW.1 for the purpose of trap.
PW.2 is shadow witness who had accompanied PW.1 to his
office. Accused No.1 could not be found in the office and
later he was met by PW.1 on the way and therefore on
enquiry the accused No.1 was asked PW.1 to come to his
residential room. Accordingly, after some time, PWs.1 and
2 have instructed by the Investigating Officer, went to the
house of accused No.1, where several people were
present. After about 6-7 persons left, PW.1 entered the
house and the shadow witness was standing at the door.
PW.1 was entrusted with a mini tape recorder to record
the conversation and to record the demand made by the
accused. It is the case of the prosecution that on such
demand made by the accused No.1, PW.1 gave a sum of
Rs.1,500/-, the 3 currency notes were smeared with
phenolphthalein powder and after coming out PW.1 gave
signal and then the raiding authority entered the house
and recovered the tainted money from the back pocket of
the pant of accused No.1, a mahazar was conducted as
per Ex.P19. It is the case of the prosecution that the
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8917
recording in the tape recorders was not clear and therefore
it was discarded.
12. It is the case of the prosecution that accused
No.1 was arrested and he gave his defence statement as
per Ex.P26 stating that he had received a sum of
Rs.1,500/- as per the direction of accused No.2 to be
given to him for the purpose of the corrections to be made
in the record of rights. After completion of the process,
Investigating Officer i.e., PW.9 had sent the seized articles
to the FSL and the FSL report shows that the accused had
touched the tainted money and had kept the same in his
pocket. The prosecution relies on the evidence of PWs.2,
3 and 9 in this regard. Later, accused No.2 was arrested
on 31.05.2011. Therefore, the prosecution contends that
the testimony of PW.1 coupled with the conversation
which were recorded prior to the filing of the complaint by
PW.1 shows that there was a demand by accused No.1 on
behalf of accused No.1 to send the report to the Tahsildar
as per the application filed by the father of PW.1 for
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8917
rectification of the entry in the record of rights. It is the
case of the prosecution that the accused No.1 received the
illegal gratification at the instance of accused No.2 and the
recovery of the tainted money has been proved through
the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 and as such it has proved the
guilt of the accused.
13. Learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/accused No.1 submits that the demand and
acceptance are sine-qua-non of proving the offence under
the provisions of Sections 13, 7 and 12 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act. He submits that the demand for illegal
gratification by accused No.1 is not proved. Dilating
further, he has taken the Court through the evidence of
PWs.1, 2 and 3 and also that of the Investigating Officer.
It is his contention that PW.1 in his cross-examination has
admitted that the accused had not demanded the money.
He submits that the recorded version prior to the
registration of the crime cannot constitute a valid demand.
He submits that the original conversation recorded by the
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8917
PW.1 prior to the lodging of the complaint is of no value.
Secondly, he contends that the recorded conversation did
not show that there was a demand for money by the
accused No.1. It is submitted that the original cassette
containing the recorded conversation has not been
produced by the prosecution and it is only the
transliterated which is available as per Ex.P25. Even
Ex.P25 is not proved by the prosecution since it is author
and the person who transliteration the conversation has
not been examined. There is no evidence to show that
Ex.P25, transliterated version of the conversation and no
witness states that it is true and correct transliteration.
He also submits that when the original conversation is not
available before the Court, the identity of the person who
demanded the illegal gratification in the phone
conversation with PW.1 is not proved. It is contended that
uncorroborated version of PW.1 is not believable and it
cannot be relied upon.
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8917
14. The third contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant/accused No.1 is that PW.2 say
that he was standing at the door window of the house of
accused No.1 and later he improves his version by saying
that he was standing at the doors which was about 8-10
feet away from the place where the accused No.1 sitting.
Therefore, there was no transliteration of hearing the
conversation between accused No.1 and PW.1 and the
demand made by accused No.1 could not have been heard
by PW.2. He submits that the conversation between the
accused No.1 and PW.1 at the time of trap has not been
produced and therefore the demand for illegal gratification
is not proved. He also submits that PW.2 categorically
admits that accused No.1 had only received the money
from PW.1 for the purpose of giving the same to accused
No.2. Therefore, he contends that simply receiving of the
money by accused No.1 would not be sufficient enough to
prove the guilt unless the demand is proved and
established. The fourth contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant/accused No.1 is that there is
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8917
discrepancy between the evidence of PWs.2 and 3. He
points out that PW.1 says that he met the accused Nos.1
and 2 and it is not the case of the prosecution that
accused No.2 had entrusted negotiated bribe money to
accused No.1. He also points out that there are other
improvements in the evidence of PW.1 which render his
testimony unbelievable. He also points out that PWs.5, 6
and 7 who were allegedly present at the house of accused
No.1, at the time of trap have turned hostile and therefore
their testimony is of no value. He also points out that
PW.4-the Tahsildar did not identify the voice of accused
No.1 when the Investigating Officer had played the
recorded conversation to him. Therefore, he contends
that there are enumerable discrepancies in the evidence of
prosecution and therefore the prosecution has failed to
prove the guilt of the accused.
15. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
accused No.2 submits that simply because the accused
No.1 had taken the name of accused No.2, it cannot be
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8917
said that he was also involved in the crime. He submits
that except say of PW.2, there is nothing on record to
show that he had instructed the accused No.1 to receive
the bribe money. He has adopted the arguments of the
learned counsel appearing for the accused No.1.
16. Per contra, learned Spl. Public Prosecutor
contends that the testimony of PW.1 show that accused
Nos.1 and 2 had to submit a report to the Tahsildar for the
correction of the entries in the record of rights. The
accused Nos.1 and 2 were withholding such report to be
given to the Tahsildar and to perform the said duty, they
demanded illegal gratification. He submits that
conversation in Ex.P25 show that accused No.2 was also
present. He submits that the testimony of PW.1 is
supported by Ex.P25, and the minor discrepancies cannot
be in the way of believing the evidence of PW.1. He
contends that when the testimony of PW.1 is supported by
PW.25, his testimony in respect of the demand made by
accused at the time of trap is also to be believed. It is
- 19 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8917
submitted that PWs.1 and 2 have categorically stated that
accused No.1 had demanded the money and after receipt
of money, he had informed PW.1 that his work would be
done. This shows that there was a demand for performing
the duty entrusted to accused No.1 and therefore the
demand has been proved by the prosecution.
17. Secondly, he contends that the statement of
accused No.1 as per Ex.P26, clearly show that accused
No.2 had received the money. The purpose for which he
received the money is also mentioned by accused No.1 in
his defence statement. Therefore, he contends that
accused No.2 had had instructed the accused No.1 to
finalize the bribe money and after receipt of the same, to
sent the report to the concerned authority. He submits
that the testimony of PW.2, the shadow witness of the trap
is clear and there are no reasons to discard his evidence.
Thus, he relies heavily on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, in
order to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe
amount. He further submitted that the distance from the
- 20 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8917
accused and shadow witness at the time of trap is not
much of relevance since PW.2 has stated that accused had
received the money given by PW.1. He also submits that
the hostility of PW.4-Tahsildar regarding identity of the
voice of accused No.1 would not be of much relevance
since the recording is not before the Court. Thus, he
heavily relies on the testimony of PWs.1 and 2 and
submits that their testimony is in fulcrum of the
prosecution case.
18. In the light of the above submissions by both
the sides, the points that arise for consideration of this
Court are;
(a) Whether the prosecution has proved that there
was a demand for bribe for performance of the
in submitting the report to the Tahsildar?
(b) Whether the prosecution proves the acceptance
of Rs.1,500/- by accused No.1 in furtherance of
such demand made by accused No.1?
- 21 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8917
(c) Whether the impugned judgment is perverse,
arbitrary and deserves to be interfered with?
(d) What order?
19. It is the settled position of law that ton
constitute an offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC
Act, the demand and acceptance and recovery of the
illegal gratification alleged to have been paid to the
appellant is the basic ingredient. The decision in the case
of Dashrath Singh Chavan Vs. CBI reported in 2019
(17) SCC 509, lays down that the twin requirements of
demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused
are essential but proving of one alone was not sufficient.
The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
M.R.Purushottam vS state of Karnataka, 2015 (3)
SCC 247, also lays down that mere possession and
recovery of the tainted currency notes without proof of
demand will not bring home the offence under Section
31(1)(d) of the PC Act.
- 22 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8917
20. It is also relevant to note that the demand
before acceptance of the bribe money is an essential
ingredient of the offence. In the case on hand, the
prosecution contended that the accused No.1 and 2had
demanded the money when the PW.1 had visited them
prior to registration of the FIR. It is pertinent to note that
such demand is spoken by the PW.1 alone, who is an
interested witness in the case, obviously, the PW.1 alleged
that the accused had not sent the report as per his request
to the Tahsildar. Therefore, the say of PW.1 need
corroboration, without which, it will not qualify to be of
any reliance. The prosecution draws support from the
alleged transliteration of the conversation as per Ex.P25.
Evidently, Ex.P25 was prepared at the time of entrustment
mahazar. It is also relevant to note that there is no
verification for Ex.P25 to be a true and correct
transliteration by anybody. PWs.2 and 3 say that it was
prepared in their presence. That alone will not be of any
help, since the alleged demand by accused Nos.1 and 2
was not made before PWs.2 and 3.
- 23 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8917
21. Yet another aspect to be noticed is that the
primary evidence of Ex.p25 is not produced before the
Court. Obviously, the voice recording by the PW.1 could
have been produced by the prosecution. Such non
production of the primary evidence, for no reasons, would
disentitle the prosecution from placing any reliance on
Ex.P25. It is also to be noted that the Ex.P25 was only a
material which enabled the Investigating Officer to
ascertain the contention of PW.1 while filing the complaint.
It cannot take the place of conclusive and admissible
evidence as a proof of the demand made by the accused.
It can only be said that Ex.P25 serves as a justification for
registration of the FIR by PW.9.
22. With this let us examine the testimony of PW.2.
In his examination in chief, he states that on 18.01.2010,
he was called to the Lokayukta Police station and
demonstration and entrustment mahazar was prepared as
per Ex.P15 and the tainted currency notes were given to
the PW.1, he Says that when they reached the room of the
- 24 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8917
accused No.1, there were 6 to 7 persons and after waiting
for 10 minutes, the PW.1 went inside and the other people
who were inside came out. He says that he was standing
in front of the window, at a distance of 8 to 10 feet from
accused No.1. He says that PW.1 told the accused No.1
that his work be got done and the accused No.1 agreed.
Then the PW.1 gave the tainted currency notes to the
accused who counted and kept in the back pocket. It is
pertinent to note nowhere PW.2 states that accused No.1
had demanded the money. Thus, the demand of illegal
gratification at the time of the visit by PW.1 and PW.2 on
18.01.2010 is not categorically spoken by PW.2.
23. PW.1 says that when he entered the room of
accused, the accused No.1 had asked as to whether he
had brought the money and he gave the money saying
that he was brought the money. Thus, it is evident that
though PW.1 says that there was demand, such a
contention is not corroborated by the evidence of PW.2.
- 25 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8917
24. Apart from this, there are other discrepancies in
the case of the prosecution. Evidently, though the
conversation on 18.01.2010 was recorded, such recording
has not been produced before the Court. The PWs.2 and 3
differ as to what the accused No.1 did when the PW.3 and
the Investigating Officer entered his room. It is also
relevant to note that though PW.2, say that he was about
8 to 10 feet away from accused No.1, the sketch shows
that such distance was about 25 feet. Curiously, PW.2 in
the cross examination admits that the PW.1 gave the
money to accused No.1 saying that he is due to pay
certain money to the RI. PW.2 also improves his version
by saying that he was standing near the door but not the
window as mentioned in the mahazar at Ex.P19.
25. This evidence shows that there is no clear and
acceptable evidence showing the demand of the illegal
gratification. The trial Court has stated that there was
demand for illegal gratification as per the evidence of PW.1
and the self defence statement of accused No.1 as per
- 26 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8917
Ex.P26. In Ex.P26 the accused has stated that for the
purpose of rectification of the mutation, as per the
direction of accused No.2, the PW.1 had given the money
to be given to accused No.2. This say of the accused No.1
can only be construed as explanation but not an
admission. At no stretch, the Ex.P26, be termed to be a
demand. It can only be construed as an acceptance. Under
these circumstances, the conclusions reached by the trial
Court, appear to be on the basis of Ex.P25. Obviously, a
piece of evidence which was only for the purpose of
satisfying the truthfulness for registration of the FIR
cannot be a substantive evidence unless it is corroborated
by any other means. In view of the discussions made
supra, this Court has held that Ex.P25 cannot be of any
relevance. Therefore, the trial Court has committed an
error in holding that the demand is proved.
26. The involvement of accused No.2 as the
beneficiary of the gratification received by accused No.1 is
also not established. Obviously, accused No.2 was not
- 27 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8917
present at the spot and it is only the say of the pW.1 that
accused ano.1 had informed him that accused No.2 need
to be paid the amount for certifying the report to be sent
to the Tahsildar. It is relevant to note that though the
prosecution made an effort to get the voice of accused
Nos.1 and 2 recorded to be identified by PW.4-Krishnappa,
Tahsildar, he was unable to identify the same. It is
relevant to note that prosecution suggests PW.4 that he
had identified the voice recorded prior to the registration
of the FIR. Obviously, the original voice recording was not
produced by the prosecution and therefore the evidence of
PW.4 is nothing but hearsay. When no reason is assigned
by the prosecution for not producing the best evidence
which was available, suppression of such evidence is an
important aspect which weakens this case.
27. For aforesaid reasons, this Court comes to the
conclusion that the trial Court had erred in holding that the
charges leveled against accused NO.1 and 2 were proved.
Neither the demand by accused No.1 was proved nor the
- 28 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:8917
voice of accused No.2 was established by the prosecution.
Hence, the appeals are liable to be allowed. Accordingly,
the following:
ORDER
The appeals are allowed.
The impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed against the accused Nos.1 and 2 dated
01.07.2017 passed in S.C.No.5/2012 by the Principal
Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi is hereby set aside.
The accused are set at liberty and their bail bonds
stand cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MSR
