Karnataka High Court
Ratna vs State Of Karnataka on 12 February, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2815
CRL.A No. 100116 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100116 OF 2016 (C)
BETWEEN:
SMT. RATNA
D/O. RUDRAYYA CELLURMATH,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: OPTHALMOLOGIST,
DISTRICT HOSPITAL,
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHANKAR HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE, BAGALKOT,
REP. BY SPECIAL P.P., HIGH COURT,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B.MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by B
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
BK Location: HIGH THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374 (2) OF CR.P.C.
MAHENDRAKUMAR COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.02.15
SEEKING TO, ALLOW THE APPEAL, SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
12:54:46 +0530
AND ORDER DATED 31.03.2016 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE BAGALKOT, IN SPL.C.NO.07/2011
REGISTERED FOR THE O/P/U/S.7, 13(1)(d) R/W.13(2) OF PC ACT
1988 AND TO ACQUIT THE APPELLANT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2815
CRL.A No. 100116 of 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present criminal appeal is filed by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Court, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.
2. The prosecution alleges that the complainant (PW2) was a social worker associated with an organization for the welfare of the handicapped. Two visually impaired individuals, PW6 and CW6, had approached the said organization seeking issuance of visibility defect certificates. The complainant (PW2) escorted them to the appellant, who was an ophthalmologist at the Government District Hospital, Navanagar, Bagalkot, and requested her to issue the required certificates.
3. It is alleged that the appellant demanded an illegal gratification of ₹2500 for issuing the said certificates. Upon being informed of this demand, a member of the organization advised the complainant to approach the Lokayukta Police. On the same day, at about 12:30 p.m., the complainant, accompanied by his associate, met the Police Inspector of the Lokayukta (PW12) and narrated the demand for bribe by the appellant. Acting upon the directions of PW12, the complainant was provided with a tape recorder to record the conversation with the accused.
-3-NC: 2025:KHC-D:2815 CRL.A No. 100116 of 2016
4. As instructed, the complainant again approached the appellant and reiterated his request for issuance of the certificates. During this interaction, the appellant allegedly reaffirmed her demand for a bribe of ₹2500, which was recorded in the tape recorder. The complainant thereafter returned to the Lokayukta Police Station and lodged a formal complaint (Ex.P18) against the appellant.
5. Pursuant to the complaint, the Lokayukta Police secured two panch witnesses (CW2 and PW1) and conducted a pre-trap mahazar (Ex.P1). The complainant produced one currency note of ₹1000 denomination and three currency notes of ₹500 denomination, whose serial numbers were noted down. These notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and handed over to the complainant, who was instructed to proceed to the residential quarters of the appellant, accompanied by the shadow witness (PW1), to execute the trap.
6. Upon reaching the quarters, the complainant allegedly handed over the tainted currency notes to the appellant. He then stepped out of the premises and gave the predetermined signal. The Lokayukta Police, along with the raiding team, immediately entered the premises, disclosed their identity to the appellant, and prepared a sodium carbonate solution test in two separate bowls. Upon dipping the appellant's right and left hand into the solutions, both solutions turned pink, indicating the presence of phenolphthalein powder. The complainant then informed the police -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:2815 CRL.A No. 100116 of 2016 that the appellant had demanded and accepted the bribe amount of ₹2500 and issued the certificates.
7. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined 13 witnesses (PW1 to PW13), exhibited documents at Ex.P1 to P38(b), and marked material objects (MO1 to MO8). The accused produced documents marked as Ex.D1 to D4.
8. After framing points for consideration and evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court recorded a finding that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and consequently convicted and sentenced her.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that:
• The complainant (PW2) turned hostile and in his testimony admitted that he placed the tainted currency beneath the vanity bag of the appellant at the behest of the police.
• The shadow witness (PW1) gave contradictory statements during cross-examination, admitting that he did not enter the residential quarters of the appellant but saw the appellant accepting the bribe through a window. This contradicted his earlier statement recorded in the trap panchanama (Ex.P13), where he had stated that he entered the quarters along with the complainant.
• The entire case of the prosecution hinges on the contradictory and unreliable testimony of the shadow witness (PW1) and the investigating officer (PW12).-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2815 CRL.A No. 100116 of 2016 • The alleged conversation between the complainant and the appellant was not subjected to forensic examination to establish the identity of the voices, nor was a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, furnished to validate the electronic evidence.
• The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant demanded and accepted the bribe.
10. In response, learned counsel for the respondent (Lokayukta) argued that:
• The hostility of the complainant does not weaken the prosecution case, as the testimony of the shadow witness and the recovery of tainted money establish the guilt of the appellant.
• The investigating officer (PW12) conducted a lawful and proper investigation, proving the acceptance of the tainted currency and recovery from the accused.
• The trial court correctly evaluated the evidence and reached a proper conclusion, warranting no interference.
Findings of the Court:
11. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the trial court records, the primary point for determination is whether the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and whether the judgment of conviction warrants interference.
-6-NC: 2025:KHC-D:2815 CRL.A No. 100116 of 2016
12. Ex.P10 and Ex.P12 are transcripts of the alleged recorded conversation between the complainant and the accused. The prosecution claims that these transcripts substantiate the demand for a bribe. However, PW4 (Retired District Surgeon) and PW5 (Medical Officer), both of whom worked alongside the appellant, denied confirming the voice of the accused. PW4 was declared hostile, and PW5 refused to recognize the voice in the recording.
13. PW6, the alleged victim, also turned hostile.
14. PW7, an Engineer who prepared the site sketch (Ex.P25), deposed that no window existed on either side of the main entrance of the appellant's residential quarters. This contradicts PW1's claim that he witnessed the alleged bribe being accepted through a window near the entrance.
15. The shadow witness (PW1) provided contradictory testimony:
• In examination-in-chief, he claimed he was standing outside the quarters and saw the accused accepting the bribe through a window.
• In cross-examination, he admitted that his earlier statement in the trap panchanama (Ex.P13) stated that he had entered the quarters with the complainant.-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2815 CRL.A No. 100116 of 2016 • The sketch (Ex.P25) confirmed that there was no window either on the left or right side of the entrance, but there was a window on the adjacent wall, further discrediting his testimony.
16. The Investigating Officer, who was examined as PW12, supported the prosecution's case only to the extent of the recovery of the tainted money. However, his testimony regarding the demand and acceptance of the gratification amount holds no evidentiary value, particularly in light of the fact that PW2, the complainant, and PW1, the shadow witness, failed to establish that the accused had demanded or accepted the gratification amount.
17. The transcript of the recorded conversation was not subjected to forensic examination nor supported by a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, rendering it inadmissible in evidence.
18. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant demanded and accepted a bribe of ₹2500. The contradictory testimony of the shadow witness (PW1), the hostility of the complainant (PW2), and the absence of admissible electronic evidence significantly undermines the prosecution's case. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
-8-NC: 2025:KHC-D:2815 CRL.A No. 100116 of 2016 ORDER
a) Appeal is allowed.
b) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31st March, 2016 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot in Spl. C. No. 7/2011 is here by set-aside;
c) The appellant/accused is acquitted of the aforesaid offences; and
d) The bail bonds, if any, stands discharged.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 152