State Of Karnataka vs Smt. N Rajeshwari
2026 Latest Caselaw 1819 Kant

acquittal under section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure as

under:

"8. ...8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;

8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence;

8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;

8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and

8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible."

17. In the case of BABU SAHEBGOUDA RUDRAGOUDAR AND

OTHERS (supra) it is observed that it is beyond the pale of

doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for

reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court

- 11 -

in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four

corners of the following principles. The same are:

"1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;

2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and

3. That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."

18. In the case on hand, the complainant R Srinivasamurthy-

PW6 had filed a private complaint under Sections 190 and 200

of Code of Criminal Procedure and the same was registered in

PCR No.53 of 2012. The complaint was referred to Additional

Director of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore under

Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation.

After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-

sheet only against accused No.3-Smt. Rajeshwari and has not

submitted charge-sheet against the other accused. Therefore,

the trial Court has taken cognizance against accused No.3-

Rajeshwari for offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) of

Prevention of Corruption Act as per order dated 04th

September, 2014. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24th

September 2012, accused being the Public servant working as

- 12 -

First Division Assistant in the office of the Deputy

Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, was approached by

de-facto complainant-Srinivasamurthy for issuance of certified

copies of the Revision Petition filed by one Smt. C S Gayathri to

who demanded an amount of ₹3,00,000/- per acre of the

disputed land for forgetting the order made in his favour

through Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore City. Thereby,

accused committed the offence punishable under Section 7 of

Prevention of Corruption Act. To prove the guilt of the accused,

prosecution has examined seven witnesses as PWs 1 to 7 and

marked 33 documents as per Exhibits P1 to P33 and five

material objects as MO1 to 5. The defendant has produced

documents marked as Exhibits D1 to D3.

19. CW1-Srinivasamurthy R is examined as PW6 and CW2-Sri

C R Mundasada is examined as PW1 to prove the mahazar of

marking of documents from the office of the Commissioner and

to prove the audio and video recordings pertaining to the

demand of bribe amount which is transferred to a compact disc

and also to prove the transcription of voice recordings in

compact disc, reduced into writing.

20. CW5-Bhadraiah and CW4-Chandrachary B N examined as

PW3 and PW5 respectively, to prove Exhibit P5 and the video

- 13 -

clippings, showing demand of bribe by the accused.

CW43-Smt. Srividya is examined as PW4 to prove the audio

recording containing the alleged to be voices of accused, which

tallies with the sample voice of accused collected by the

investigating officer during investigation.

21. CW45- Shivarama Reddy is examined as PW7 who stated

about the investigation conducted by him.

22. The trail Court, in paragraph 22 to 26 of its judgment,

has observed as under:

"22. On thorough scrutiny of the evidence of PW6, Ex. P24 complaint and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for accused, it can be seen that in Ex. P24 the complainant states that he approached accused on 24.09.2012 seeking for certified copies of revision petition, I.A.s and order sheets and she explained about the case and at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner, she negotiated with PW6 to pay a bribe of Rs 3 lakhs per acre to oblige them and to get a favourable order to PW6. He further averred in his complaint that he recorded the said conversations and he also expresses his shock in the complaint that the Deputy Commissioner had demanded bribe to get favourable orders. He annexed the DVD containing the said demand of the accused along with his complaint. But in his substantive evidence before Court, he deposes that he met accused along with his friend Lakshminarayan on 24.09.2012 at 12.00 noon and enquired about the orders. Then the accused informed

- 14 -

that she will get it done if Rs. 3 lakhs per acre, as such Rs. 5 lakhs are given and she should also be taken care of. Para 3 of evidence of PW6 at Page No.2 is thus:

"DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉýzÁUÀ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É MAzÀÄ JPÀgÉUÉ gÀÆ 3 ®PÀëzÀAvÉ MlÄÖ gÀÆ 5 ®PÀë PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ CzÀgÀ dÉÆvÉUÉ vÀ£ÀߣÀÄß UÀªÀĤ¹PÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ".

23. Therefore, it is clear that the testimony of PW6 that accused told him that she should be taken care of which finds no place in his complaint, is only the embellishment he has made to substantiate his stance that accused demanded bribe. Moreover, he does not say that she contacted the Deputy Commissioner before making the said demand and on behalf the Deputy Commissioner she is demanding bribe. He says that she assured him that she would get the order made in his favour. It is not clear from whom she will make it. In Ex. P24 complaint it is stated that, at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner she negotiated with PW 6. It can be seen that from the evidence on record that on 24.09.2012 at 12.00 noon PW6 and his friend Lakshminarayan met accused at her office and they were talking with her at a stretch and from his evidence it is proved that while he talking with her, she did not leave her seat or contacted anyone else. Therefore, the averments in the complaint that she demanded bribe at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner and later the improved version of PW6 in his substantial evidence before Court that she told him she should also be taken care of, cannot be believed. Moreover, in Ex. P21 or Ex. D3 there is no whisper that accused told her that she also should be taken care of while demanding bribe. There exist apparent gaps in his testimony with regard to demand of bribe which are left

- 15 -

incomplete. Hence the testimony of PW6 does not in any way inspire the confidence of this Court.

24. The evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 5 does not throw any light to the prosecution case with regard to demand of bribe by the accused. They only speak with regard to the scene mahazar, seizure mahazars and obtaining voice samples of accused and Deputy Commissioner by the investigating officer, copying of the conversation from the DVD produced by PW6 along with his complaint to CDs and reducing the contents thereof into writing. If these aspects are admitted as such this will not in any way facilitate the prosecution case that accused demanded bribe. Now coming to the evidence of PW4, wherein she states that the voice of the accused found in the recordings were found to be similar to that of the sample voice of accused collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation, as already pointed out in the earlier part of this judgment, the CDs being electronic evidence and no certificate u/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act is attached with them, these cannot be relied upon. Even if they are considered as such, since, there is no demand of bribe found in the conversation between the complainant and the accused, the Ex. P6 report issued by the PW4 will not help the prosecution to connect the accused to the alleged offence.

25. On close scrutiny of the evidence of PW 7 the investigating officer, there is no fruitful investigation conducted by him to ascertain the demand of bribe made by accused. His line of investigation goes to show that he was behind the land dispute case of PW6 with C. S. Gayathri and he was keen in collecting all the materials

- 16 -

with regard to that case from the Tahsildar, Anekal taluk, Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru and sale deeds from Sub-Registrar's office, etc. Since, he was investigating the allegations made by PW6 in his private complaint with regard to A1, A2 and A4 along with allegations against the A3 of that complaint, he is duty bound to investigate the same to ascertain genuineness of the case of PW 6. When he testifies that after investigation he could not find out any evidence against either A1, A2 or A4, he deleted their names from the charge sheet and he laid charge sheet against A3 alone, it is his bounden duty to place before the Court all the materials which bring home the guilt of accused against whom he has laid charge sheet and it is the burden of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused committed the alleged offences with cogent and reliable evidence. He deposes that he laid charge sheet on the basis of audio and video recordings and other evidence. The audio-video clippings are not proved before the Court with admissible evidences. The prosecution case hinges solely upon the testimony of PW6. The allegation made in Ex. P24 complaint as well as the material collected during investigation and exhibited before Court, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted, do not convincingly prove the prosecution case that the accused demanded bribe.

26. The Hon'ble Apex Court, time and again through its various judgments reminds us the principle that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to

- 17 -

his/her innocence, the view which is favourable the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. I find considerable merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for accused that the prosecution evidence suffers from embellishments and materials contradictions to find the accused guilty of the offences charged against her. Law is well settled that only after discharge of initial burden cast upon the prosecution to prove the demand of bribe by the accused, the onus of proof would shift to the accused. From evaluation of the overall evidence on record, it does not establish the demand of bribe by the accused to extend official favour towards PW6. Hence, the guilt of the accused has not been established beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt by the prosecution. For the reasons mentioned supra, I answer point No. 1 in the NEGATIVE."

23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of K

SHANTHAMMA (supra), at paragraph 11 of the judgment, has

observed as under:

"11. In the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another1, this Court has summarised the well-settled law on the subject, in paragraph 23 it reads thus:

"23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail.

Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof,

- 18 -

dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder."

24. In the case on hand, on re-appreciation, reconsideration,

and re-examination of the entire evidence on record, I do not

find any legal or factual error in the impugned judgment of

acquittal passed by the trial court. Keeping in mind, the

aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court and considering the fact

and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to

interfere with the judgment of acquittal. Accordingly, answer

Point No.1 in the affirmative.

Regarding No.2:

25. For the reason aforestated and discussions, I proceed to

pass the following:

ORDER

Appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

lnn