TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1448
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and also for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of six months. FACTUAL POSITION : 3. The Appellant, presently aged about 70 years, was working as a Revenue Inspector in the office of the Mandal Revenue Office (hereinafter referred to as the 'MRO') posted at Gundala Mandal, Nalgonda District, which was in the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh between 12.10.2001 to 20.08.2003. On 06.08.2003, the complainant submitted an application to the MRO, Gundala Mandal, claiming compensation for trees that dried up due to drought. The MRO forwarded the same to the accused officer/Appellant for conducting an inquiry. On the same day, in the evening, it was alleged that when the complainant (herei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the trap party indicating acceptance of bribe by the Appellant. The trap party then approached the Appellant and questioned him regarding the bribe amount. Tests were conducted on the hands of the Appellant which proved negative. However, money was recovered from the rexine bag attached to the petrol tank of the Appellant's motorcycle. 7. On 29.01.2008, considering the evidence and after hearing arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the Trial Court concluded that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Trial Court convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act and also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period for six months for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the Trial Court's Judgment dated 29....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the house. It was, hence, urged that the appeal be allowed, as there was no evidence worth the name available against the Appellant. SUBMISSIONS BY THE RESPONDENT: 14. Learned counsel for the Respondent drew our attention to Paragraph no.17 of the Trial Court Judgment and contended that ordinarily, a demand for illegal gratification would not be made openly by corrupt officials to avoid being reported and to safeguard their reputation. Therefore, the absence of other direct witnesses to the demand would not amount to controverting or denying the demand but would only suggest that the same was not made in the presence of other persons. In fact, PW2 had stated in his examination-in-chief that the Appellant had asked the complainant about the bribe amount and after nodding his head, the Appellant instructed the complainant to meet him at the crossroads. It was submitted that as to the fact that PW2 was not inside the room when the afore-noted conversation occurred, he was just outside the door, showing that he was at a hearing distance. 15. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no motive for complainant to falsely concoct a story against the Appellant and even if....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such inconsistencies. It needs no special emphasis to state that every omission cannot take place of a material omission and, therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence. The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission. (See Rammi v. State of M.P. [Rammi v. State of M.P., (1999) 8 SCC 649: 2000 SCC (Cri) 26], Leela Ram v. State of Haryana [Leela Ram v. State of Haryana, (1999) 9 SCC 525: 2000 SCC (Cri) 222], Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh [Bihari Nath Goswami v. Shiv Kumar Singh, (2004) 9 SCC 186: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1435], Vijay v. State of M.P. [Vijay v. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 191: (201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... when the contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses proves to be fatal to the prosecution case then those contradictions go to the root of the matter and in such cases the accused gets the benefit of doubt. 33. It is the duty of the Court to consider the trustworthiness of evidence on record. As said by Bentham, "witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice". In the facts on hand, we feel that the evidence of these witnesses is filled with discrepancies, contradictions and improbable versions which draws us to the irresistible conclusion that the evidence of these witnesses cannot be a basis to convict the accused.' ( emphasis supplied ) 19. To begin with, PW3 had stated that a few days prior to the incident, there was hot talk between the complainant-PW1 and the Appellant, and in fact, PW3 had reprimanded the Appellant for quarrelling with PW1. However, the High Court has disbelieved this aspect without assigning any reason(s) for the same. Further, PW1's version itself during his deposition before the Trial Court is selfcontradictory, inasmuch as initially he stated in his examination-in-chief that both he and the accused officer came back to his house and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndent, of both (i) the money being placed in the rexine bag attached to the petrol tank of the Appellant's bike, and; (ii) its recovery as also whether the same was in the presence of the Appellant, does not seem to inspire confidence. The same cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, in our considered opinion. In Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1038, while allowing the appeals preferred by the convicts therein, it was observed that when the Court is to choose between the version proffered by the prosecution vis-à-vis the defence version, in the face of reasonable doubt towards the prosecution story, the Court should lean in the defence's favour. 20. One further aspect which the Court would like to dwell on is that as per the version of the witnesses themselves, at the very least, what is common is that the Appellant had taken a round of the horticulture garden of the complainant for preparing a report relating to the claim of insurance/compensation for PW1's trees which were destroyed due to drought, whereafter the Appellant returned to the house and had tea. The presence of DW1-wife of the complainant inside the house, ....