Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 627 (KAR)

B. Chandrashekar v. State of Karnataka

2011-06-21

V.JAGANNATHAN

body2011
Judgment :- This criminal appeal is by the accused, who has been convicted by the trial court in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption, Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-in respect of the offence under Section 7 and two years S.I. and Rs.5,000/-fine in respect of the offence under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act, with default sentences. 2. The case of the prosecution in short is that, the appellant herein, while working as a Police Sub-Inspector at Ulsoor Gate Police Station, demanded Rs.10,000/-from the complainant in order to release the vechile No.CAW 6060, which vehicle had met with an accident on 24.4.2002. The complainant, being the husband of the vehicle owner, approached the accused for the release of the vehicle and the accused demanded Rs.10,000/-at first to release the vehicle and finally, the amount was brought down to Rs.4,000/-. As the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he approached the Lokayuktha Police with his complaint as per Ex.P-6. Entrustment mahazar followed as per Ex.P-8 and everything was arranged for the trap of the accused. 3. The complainant, accompanied by PW.1 Mohan and P.W.7 shadow witness, went to the office of the accused on 30.04.2002. The accused demanded Rs.4,000/-from the complainant and the complainant gave the amount of Rs.4,000/-in the presence of P.Ws.1 and 7. The accused accepted the bribe amount by asking the complainant to put the money in the drawer. Accordingly, the complainant put the money in the table drawer of the accused and thereafter, the accused asked the complainant as to how much money the complainant had brought and then, the complainant told him that he could very well count the money. Accordingly, the accused took out the amount from the table drawer and counted the same and thereafter, the money was again put back into the drawer of the accused. The Lokayuktha police came and the accused was trapped and the trap mahazar was also drawn as per Ex.P-4. After obtaining the sanction order as per Ex.P-5 and on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. 4. The Lokayuktha police came and the accused was trapped and the trap mahazar was also drawn as per Ex.P-4. After obtaining the sanction order as per Ex.P-5 and on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed. 4. At the trial, the accused denied the charge leveled against him and the prosecution led evidence by examining P.Ws.1 to 8, out of whom P.W.3 is the complainant and P.W.1 Mohan accompanied the complainant and P.W.7 panch witness also accompanied the complainant to the office of the accused. The hand wash of the accused tested positive when immersed in the chemical solution. The trial court, based on the evidence on record and after recording the accused statement and taking note of the documents marked on behalf of the accused viz., Exs.D-1 and D-2, as well as M.Os.1 to 8, held that the prosecution had brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. There was no rebuttal evidence placed by the accused. Therefore, the trial court had no difficulty in convicting the appellant and sentencing him as mentioned earlier. 5. Challenging the judgment of conviction, learned counsel Shri Anand for the appellant mainly contended that, as the shadow witness P.W.7 has not supported the prosecution case, there was no corroboration of the evidence of the complainant P.W.3. As such, the trial court could not have convicted the appellant. In this regard, he took me through the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 7. It was also argued by him that, P.W.1. Mohan is an interested witness because, the said witness happens to be the Director of Yeshwanthapura Lorry Owners Association and being an interested witness, his testimony could not have been banked upon. It is on the aforesaid argument, the learned counsel for the appellant sought for the judgment of conviction being set aside. 6. On the other hand, the submission of Smt. T.M. Gayathri, learned counsel for the respondent-Lokayuktha, is that, the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant as the evidence on record, particularly that of P.W.3 has been fully corroborated by the evidence of P.W.1 and other witnesses and, as such, merely because, the panch witness P.W.7 did not support the prosecution case, it cannot be said that the evidence of the complainant lacks corroboration from the other evidence on record. The demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the accused has been well established and the hand wash of the accused has been tested positive and there was no rebuttal evidence placed by the accused. Under the said circumstances, the trial court rightly convicted the appellant and, as such no interference is called for. 7. In the light of the aforesaid submissions put forward and after going through the evidence on record, I find that the trial court committed no error in convicting the appellant and the reasons for the same are the following. P.W.1 Mohan is the Director of Yeshwanthapura lorry Owners Association and he has deposed in his evidence that the complainant met him and told him that the accused was demanding Rs.10,000/-from him for releasing lorry No.CAW 6060, which belongs to the complainant’s wife. The witness has further stated that he went along with the complainant to the office of the accused and the complainant removed the notes from his left hand side shirt pocket and went to pay the amount to the accused and then the accused pulled the drawer of his table and asked the complainant to drop the same into his drawer. Accordingly, the complainant put the money in the table drawer of the accused and then the accused asked the complainant as to how much amount was there. Then, the complainant told the accused to count it himself. The accused removed the money from the drawer and counter it by holding the money in both his hands and thereafter kept the money in his table drawer and closed it. Afterwards, the Lokayuktha Police came and caught hold of the accused and his hands were tested positive when immersed in the solution since the solution turned into pink colour. This evidence of P.W.1 has not been shaken to any extent in the cross-examination. 8. P.W.3 is the complainant. He has deposed in the like manner, with regard to the extent of bribe being accepted by the accused, the complainant has deposed at paragraph-10 of the evidence in similar fashion. In other words, what is deposed by the complainant at paragraph-10 is fully supported by the evidence of P.W.1, which is found at paragraph-6 of his evidence. P.W.3 has not been tested seriously in the cross-examination to disbelieve the complaint version. 9. In other words, what is deposed by the complainant at paragraph-10 is fully supported by the evidence of P.W.1, which is found at paragraph-6 of his evidence. P.W.3 has not been tested seriously in the cross-examination to disbelieve the complaint version. 9. No explanation was forthcoming from the accused nor was there any rebuttal evidence placed by the accused. The trial court, therefore, had no hesitation in accepting the prosecution case and the trial court went on to hold that the prosecution had brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 10. Coming to the corroboration part of the case, the testimony of P.W.3 has been fully supported by the evidence of P.W.1, though the shadow witness P.W.7 did not support the prosecution case. Nevertheless, as there is corroboration to be found from the evidence on record to support the testimony of P.W.3 and the accused also having not come forward with any defence theory whatsoever, merely because P.W.1 happens to be the Director of Yashawanthapura Lorry Owners Association and assisted the complainant in drafting the complaint, that itself will not make P.W.1 an interested witness. It is not suggested to P.W.1 in the course of his cross-examination that he had any enmity against the accused. Such being the evidence on record, I see no infirmity in the prosecution case nor can it be said that the trial court committed any error in relying on the testimony of P.W.1. 11. For the above reasons, I see no case made out by the appellant for this court to reverse the judgment of conviction. As far as the sentence is concerned, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that, the appellant has since retired from service and is suffering from various ailments and therefore, the court may consider the sentence being reduced. For this the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that, the minimum sentence for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) is one year imprisonment and since the offence is committed by a police sub-inspector, the sentence also will have to be of such a nature so that a message would go to the other police inspectors also. 12. For this the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that, the minimum sentence for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) is one year imprisonment and since the offence is committed by a police sub-inspector, the sentence also will have to be of such a nature so that a message would go to the other police inspectors also. 12. Having thus heard both sides on the question of sentence, the sentence imposed for the offence under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act can be reduced from two years to one year, while maintaining the fine amount imposed at Rs.5,000/-. The sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act, however, does not require any modification. 13. In the result, the following order is passed: The conviction of the appellant by the trial court is confirmed. As far as the sentence is concerned, while maintaining the sentence imposed in respect of the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act, insofar as the offence under Sections 13 (1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act is concerned, instead of two years simple imprisonment, the appellant shall undergo S.I. for one year and shall pay the fine of Rs.5,000/-imposed by the trial court. The default sentence imposed remains un altered. The appeal, therefore, stands allowed in part to the extent of the sentence being modified as indicated above. The sentence imposed shall run concurrently and the appellant is entitled to set off in respect of the period already undergone in custody, if any. The appellant shall forthwith surrender before the trial court to undergo the sentences imposed and the trial court shall also take necessary steps in this regard to ensure the presence of the accused for him to serve over the sentence. A copy of this judgment shall be sent forthwith to the trial court for compliance.