Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment and order of conviction is erroneous and without proper appreciation of the evidence on record. Though there is no convincing evidence for having made demand of Rs.5,000/- and acceptance has not been proved, the Trial Court has wrongly convicted the accused. He further contended that the evidence of PWs-1 and 9 is not acceptable, since the complainant and another witness have not supported the case of the prosecution. He further contended that though PW-3, the shadow witness, has deposed with regard to the receipt and demand of money by the accused, as per the sketch, the shadow witness was standing within the hall and from such a distance, there is no possibility of he observing and hearing the transactions between the complainant and the accused. He further contended that the sketch, which has been produced, clearly indicates the fact that the alleged offence has taken place inside the chamber of the accused and admittedly the shadow witness was standing in the hall, then under such circumstances, the evidence which has been led in this behalf by examining PW-3 is not acceptable and reliable. He further contended that there is inconsistency in filing of the complaint itself. PW-1, the complainant, has gone to the house of the police inspector and filed the complaint in the residence. To that effect there is an endorsement in this behalf, but as per the evidence of PW-5, the Head Constable, the complainant came to the office and filed the complainant and even PW-2, the writer of the complaint, has deposed that the said complaint was drafted at the dictation of the police in the Lokayukta Office. Though, there are inconsistencies in the evidence of these witnesses, the Trial Court relying upon such evidence, has wrongly come to the conclusion and has wrongly convicted the accused. He further contended that there is no substantive evidence to convict the accused. Though there is no demand and acceptance and the phenolphthalein test has also not been proved in accordance with law, then under such circumstances, the Trial Court ought not to have convicted the accused. Even the evidence, which has been produced clearly indicates the fact that the complainant went and gave the cover by saying that he is giving the cover recommended by the M.L.A. and that fact has also been admitted by the complainant, then under such circumstances, the question of receiving the bribe amount which has been put into the cover is not acceptable in law. The Trial Court without any cogent evidence has wrongly convicted the accused. On these grounds he prayed for allowing the appeal by setting-aside the impugned order.