Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. The learned court below while deciding the matter has framed four issues, in all, which are as under:

"(i) Whether accused Ratan Kumar is public servant?

(ii) Whether accused Ratan Kumar demanded Rs.1000/- from complainant Prithivinath to regularize his leave and he obtained the amount from Prithivinath?

(iii) Whether the amount given by complainant Prithivinath to the accused is in addition to his legitimate income?

(iv) Whether the money was obtained by accused Ratan Kumar from complainant Prithivinath for regularizing the leave account of the complainant?

19. So far as issue nos.3 and 4 are concerned, the trial court opined that some contradictions in the statements of ocular witnesses is normal which is not fatal to disbelieve their testimony. Learned trial court also opined that it will be the only presumption that the said amount had been received by the appellant, other than his legitimate remuneration. While appreciating the statements of the prosecution witnesses, learned trial court held that the currency given by Prithivinath was other than his legitimate remuneration and the said currency was demanded by the accused to regularize the leave account of complainant Prithivinath.

20. On the basis of the evidence on record adduced during trial and the statement of the eye-witnesses, trial court held the appellant guilty of charges levelled against him and convicted and sentenced him, as referred to above.

21. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the trial court, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

22. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove demand of bribe by the appellant. Recovery of Rs.1000/- from the accused has been admitted but this money has not been sought for regularization of leave account of the accused, rather this money had been paid by the complainant against an earlier loan lent by the accused to the complainant. In the F.I.R., the complainant had described about the leave from 31.10.1994 to 13.11.1994 and 17.12.1994 to 23.12.1994 and P.W.2- Prithivinath (complainant) has himself stated in his statement that Ratan Babu had been maintaining the leave records from 1975-1982. If accused Ratan Kumar was assigned the duty of maintaining leave record from 1975-1982 then how could he demand money from the complainant in respect of his leave for 1994. In this regard, bare reading of complete statement of P.W.2 clearly reveals that at very next moment he has also said that accused Ratan Kumar had joined as a clerk in 1991 and the leave records were being maintained by Sri Mishra from 1975-1982. It appears that due to slip of tongue this witness has firstly said that during 1975-1982 Mishra was maintaining the leave records but very next moment he stated that the leave records were being maintained by Ratan Kumar. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the trial court has given much weightage to the testimoney of P.W.-2 (Prithivinath) ignoring the fact that there are material contradictions in his statement.

33. Learned trial court has rightly opined that some contradiction/ omission after lapse of considerable time is normal in the statements of ocular witnesses and on the basis, statement cannot be discredited. The prosecution version has been fully supported by the witnesses, who do not have animosity with the appellant.

34. After discussing the evidence and statements of the prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses, in detail, learned trial court has rightly held that the money given by Prithivinath was other than his legitimate remuneration and this money had been obtained by the accused to regularize the leave account of complainant Prithivinath.