Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Smt. Gouramma on 22 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:913
CRL.A No. 200070 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200070 OF 2017
(378(Cr.PC)/419(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION
KALABURAGI
NOW REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
(LOKAYUKTA)
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, SPL PP)
AND:
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA SMT. GOURAMMA W/O. CHANNAPPA SHASHTRI
DATTATRAYA AGE 36 YEARS, OCC. ANGANWADI WORKER
UDAGI
Location: HIGH OF TONASANALLI (S)
COURT OF R/O SHAHABAD, TQ. CHJITTAPUR,
KARNATAKA
DIST. GULBARGA-585103.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI AYYANAGOUDA S PATIL., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) & (3) OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED:07.12.2016
PASSED IN SPECIAL CASE NO.266/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AT KALABURAGI, WHEREBY
ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7, 13(1)(d) AND 13(2) OF THE
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:913
CRL.A No. 200070 of 2017
HC-KAR
P.C. ACT 1988. B) SET ASIDE THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE COURT BELOW BY
ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
The state has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 07.12.2016 passed in Spl.Case.266/2011 by the Prl. Sessions Judge at Kalaburgi (for brevity "Trial Court"), whereby the Trial Court acquitted the respondent-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act").
2. The abridged facts of the case are that, respondent/accused was working as Anganawadi worker at Tonasanhalli. The Government had sanctioned Bhagyalakshmi bond of Rs.1,00,000/- for complainant's daughter one Shrusti Sambhodhini. As such, the complainant submitted an application to the Anganawadi Centre, Tonasanahalli for issuance of bond. At that time, the respondent/accused directed the complainant to furnish the documents along with -3- NC: 2026:KHC-K:913 CRL.A No. 200070 of 2017 HC-KAR the photographs. Accordingly, the complainant furnished those documents. Despite, the accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- for issuance of Bhagyalakshmi bond and initially she demanded Rs.500/- through phone. The said conversation was recorded by the complainant in his mobile and he approached the Lokayukta Police and lodged the complaint in Crime No.3/2010 for the aforementioned offences. Thereafter the appellant-Police conducted an entrusted mahazar, laid a trap and arrested the accused and recovered the tainted currency. Subsequently, the appellant-Police laid a charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences before the Trial Court.
3. To prove the charges leveled against the accused before the Trial Court, the prosecution in total examined 10 witnesses as PWs.1 to 10, marked 27 documents as Exs.P1 to P27 and identified 9 material objects as MOs.1 to 9.
4. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against her. The said judgment is challenged by the Lokayukta in this appeal.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:913 CRL.A No. 200070 of 2017 HC-KAR
5. Heard learned Special counsel for the appellant- Lokayukta and the learned counsel for the respondent-accused.
6. Apart from urging several contentions, learned Special counsel for the appellant primarily contended that the judgment under this appeal suffers from perversity and illegality, since the Trial Court have failed appreciate the evidence in a right perspective. He contended that the evidence of complainant and trap panchanama witnesses categorically established that the accused demanded illegal gratification and also received the same from the complainant. The seizer of currency notes and the chemical examination of the hands of accused clearly established the recovery of tainted money. In such circumstance, the offences under the Act clearly proved beyond all reasonable doubt, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Bansal vs. State of Punjab in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.3247/2025 and by this Court in Ananya Manohar vs. State of Karnataka Lokayukta in Crl.P.No.12602/2025. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:913 CRL.A No. 200070 of 2017 HC-KAR
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Trial Court after meticulously examining the evidence on record rightly acquitted the accused in a well reasoned judgment, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. He contended that, at the outset the accused is not a public servant, since she was working as Anganawadi servant on honorarium. Further, the demand and acceptance of bribe is not at all proved since the complainant stated that the amount was not paid in the office of accused and the same was paid in a hotel while accused and complainant proceeding near the door of hotel. Subsequently, the appellant-Police caught hold the accused and made her to sit on a chair in a hotel and tainted currency notes were recovered from the table. In such circumstance, the recovery is not proved. He also contended that there was no work pendency as alleged by the complainant. Further, the complainant has admitted that he and accused had been to various offices for collection of records, for which they incurred expenses. As such, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of accused. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. -6-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:913 CRL.A No. 200070 of 2017 HC-KAR
8. I have given anxious consideration both on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and the documents available on record.
9. As could be gathered from records, to prove the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution primarily relied on the evidence of PW.1-complainant, PWs.2 and 3-the panch witnesses for entrustment mahazar-Ex.P13, seizer mahazar-Ex.P16 and recovery of tainted money as per MO.8. On careful perusal of these witnesses, according to PW.1, on 13.03.2010 the accused being an Anganawadi worker demanded Rs.1000/- from him for issuance of Bhagyalakshmi bond and the said conversation/demand was recorded by him in his mobile phone. Thereafter, he lodged the complaint. Though the phone call details are identified and marked at Ex.P27, the same do not disclose the conversation held between the accused and complainant. Further it is stated by PW1, during the trap of accused, she demanded the bribe amount outside the hotel and she received the same. Thereafter, based on the signal/instruction of PW1, the Police caught hold the accused and made her to sit on a chair in the -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:913 CRL.A No. 200070 of 2017 HC-KAR hotel and recovered the tainted currency notes of Rs.500/- on the table. PWs.2 and 3 being the shadow witnesses, though accompanied the complainant and accused, they have not witnessed the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused. According to them, they along with PW.1 and accused went to the hotel and they sat on a bench, when accused and PW.1 went towards the door of the hotel, PW.1 gave a signal to them and Police and subsequently, the trap was laid on the accused and the amount was seized on the table by making the accused to sit on a chair. Hence, it is clear that PWs.2 and 3 were also not witnessed the demand or acceptance of bribe by the accused.
10. No doubt the recovery of tainted currency notes of Rs.500/- was made on the table of the said hotel at the instance of accused and her hands were washed with sodium carbonate liquid which turned into pink colour. That itself cannot be a ground to believe that the accused received the bribe, since the Police made the accused to sit on a chair and made her to place the chemical applied currency notes on the table and recovered the same. Further, the other witnesses i.e., -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:913 CRL.A No. 200070 of 2017 HC-KAR PWs.4 to 6 though supported the case of prosecution, they are not an eye-witnesses to the incident. The investigation officer- PW10 categorically admitted that the recovery panchanama was not drawn at the spot of trap and the same was drawn at the Inspection Bungalow.
11. As far as the pendency of the work before the accused is concerned, PW.1 stated in his evidence that he and accused had been to various offices for collection of records, for which they incurred expenses. The same clearly reveals that the complainant had spent an amount for having incurred the expenditure for obtaining the documents for the Bhagyalakshmi bond and at that time, the accused also accompanied the complainant. When the complainant himself admitted that he accompanied the accused and spent money for obtaining the bond, there is no question of accused demanding illegal gratification that too Rs.500/- from the complainant. Hence, on overall examination of the evidence, there is no believable evidence and circumstance is forthcoming on record that the accused either demanded or received the illegal gratification from the complainant, as alleged by him.
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:913 CRL.A No. 200070 of 2017 HC-KAR
12. No doubt, the Hon'ble Apex Court held in the case of Devindra Kumar Bansal (Supra), mere demand or solicitation itself amounts to commission of offence under Section 7 of PC Act. However, in the instant case, the prosecution also failed to prove the demand or acceptance of the bribe by the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Additionally, the accused being an Anganawadi worker and working on honorarium as per the evidence of PW.7-CDPO, the prosecution also failed to establish that she is a public servant.
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Neeraj Dutt vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2023 Volume 4 SCC 731 laid the dictum that the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine quo non in order to establish the guilt of the accused, public servant under Section 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N.Vijayakumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 3 SCC 687 held that "absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:913 CRL.A No. 200070 of 2017 HC-KAR is not sufficient to constitute such offence and the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only after the demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 18 held as under:-
"18. The allegation of demand of gratification and acceptance made by a public servant has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision of the Constitution Bench does not dilute this elementary requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Constitution Bench was dealing with the issue of the modes by which the demand can be proved. The Constitution Bench has laid down that the proof need not be only by direct oral or documentary evidence, but it can be by way of other evidence including circumstantial evidence. When reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence to prove the demand for gratification, the prosecution must establish each and every circumstance from which the prosecution wants the Court to draw a conclusion of guilt. The facts so established must be consistent with only one hypothesis that there was a demand made for gratification by the accused. Therefore, in this case, we will have to examine whether there is any direct evidence of demand. If we come to a conclusion that there is no direct evidence of demand, this Court will have to consider whether there is any circumstantial evidence to prove the demand."
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:913 CRL.A No. 200070 of 2017 HC-KAR
15. It is settled position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above said judgments that the prosecution must establish each and every circumstance from which the prosecution wants the Court to draw a conclusion of the guilt. Moreover, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.Sathyanarayana Murthy vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152 held that, the proof of demand cannot be proved by the evidence of other witnesses, in such eventuality though such recovery proved, the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of demand, ipso facto, would not be sufficient to bring home the charges under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act.
16. In the above said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court by referring the judgment of Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam reported in (2013) 12 SCC 406 held that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of "may be" but has to upgrade it in the domain of "must be" true in order to steer clear of any possible surmise or conjecture. It was held, that
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:913 CRL.A No. 200070 of 2017 HC-KAR the Court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if in the facts and circumstances, two views are plausible, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
17. This being the appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H.R.Sundara And Others Vs. State Of Karnataka reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581, summarized the principles to exercise the power by the Appellate Court to interfere in the order of the Sessions Court in paragraph No.9 as under:
"9. Normally, when an Appellate Court exercises appellate jurisdiction, the duty of the Appellate Court is to find out whether the verdict which is under challenge is correct or incorrect in law and on facts. The Appellate Court normally ascertains whether the decision under challenge is legal or illegal. But while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court cannot examine the impugned judgment only to find out whether the view taken was correct or incorrect. After re- appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court must first decide whether the Trial Court's view was a possible view. The Appellate Court cannot overturn acquittal only on the ground that after re-appreciating evidence, it is of the view that the guilt of the accused was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Only by recording such a conclusion an order of acquittal cannot be reversed unless the Appellate Court also concludes that it was the only possible conclusion. Thus, the Appellate Court must see whether the view taken by the Trial
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:913 CRL.A No. 200070 of 2017 HC-KAR Court while acquitting an accused can be reasonably taken on the basis of the evidence on record. If the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view, the Appellate Court cannot interfere with the order of acquittal on the ground that another view could have been taken."
18. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mallappa And Others v. State Of Karnataka reported in (2024) 3 SCC 544 while summarizing the principles in dealing with the appeal against acquittal in paragraph No.42 held as under:
"42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play 9 AIR 1961 SC 715 while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:
(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive - inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;
(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:913 CRL.A No. 200070 of 2017 HC-KAR
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court."
19. Hence, collocating the principles summarized in the above judgments to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the Trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence and acquitted the accused, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16/CT:RJ