LexKRISHNA RAM versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 457 KRISHNA RAM A V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 2001 MARCH 17, 2009 B [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.] Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 7, 13(1)(d) rlw 13(2) and 20 - Prosecution for demand and acceptance of c illegal gratification - Tainted money recovered from the possession of accused - Acquittal by trial court - Conviction by High Court - On appeal, held: Conviction justified - Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification proved - Evidence of prosecution witnesses are consistent and reliable D - Once recovery of money from the possession of accused was proved, the burden of presumption uls 20 shifted on the accused and the accused failed to rebut that presumption. Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Scope of - Held: If two views are possible, E one for acquittal and the other for conviction, appellate court not to interfere with unless the material on record leads to sole and inescapable conclusion of guilt of the accused. Appellant-accused was prosecuted ulss. 7 and 13 (1) F (d) r/w s. 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Trial court found the appellant not guilty and hence acquitted him. High Court convicted him. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court ,, i HELD: 1.1 The view taken by the trial court drawn on G the evidence on record is unreasonable and perverse and the High Court has rightly interfered with the order of acquittal and convicted the appellant under Sections 7 457 H 458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R A and 13(1 )(d) rlw Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (Para 11] (446-C-D] Kalyan Singh v. State of M. P (2006) 13 SCC 303; T Subramanian v. State of TN. (2006) 1 SCC 401; State B represented by Inspector of Police, Pudukottai, TN. v. A. Parthiban (2006) 11 SCC 4 73 - referred to. 1.2 The evidence of the complainant is found to be consistent and impeachable regarding the demand of Rs.5001- by the appellant as bribe money for giving c favourable report in regard to the grant of permanent lease holder rights of the land to the complainant. His evidence is supported by contemporaneous documents prepared by the Investigating Officer before the money was delivered to the appellant. The complainant emphatically D denied the suggestion of the appellant that Rs.5001- was sent to the appellant by DW-1 as repayment of the loan amount. The complainant, the investigating Officer and other witnesses who were present when the appellant was caught red handed by the Anti Corruption Team have E been cross-examined at length by the defence, but nothing tangible has been extracted from their evidence to create any shadow of doubt that they are not truthful witnesses. They have given reliable and consistent version of the crime and their evidence inspires • F confidence. [Para 9] (465-F-G-H; 466-A] 1.3 Once it is proved that the money was recovered from the possession of the appellant, the burden of presumption as contemplated uls. 20 of the P.C. Act, 1988 shifts upon the appellant, which he could not rebut G through cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses or by adducing reliable and convincing evidence to prove . . that DW-1 advanced Rs.500/- as loan to the appellant through the complainant. (Para 9] (464-H; 465-A] 1.4 DW-1 ha~ not given any reason why he chose H the complainant alcne to deliver a sum of Rs.5001- to the i ~ • KRISHNA RAM V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 459 appellant on the day when he was apprehended by the A Anti Corruption Team. In these circumstances, the High Court has rightly concluded that the explanation given by the appellant was not probable and reasonable. [Para 9] [465-A-B] Case Law Reference (2006) 13 sec 303 (2006) 1 sec 401 (2006) 11 sec 473 Referred to. Referred to. Referred to. Para 6 Para 6 Para 10 CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 2001 B c From the Judgement and Order dated 22.12.2000 I 12.01.2001 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Crl. 0 A. No. 673 of 1999. Manoj Prasad, lshar Singh, K.K. Srivastava, Janesh Singh, for the Appellant. · Manish Singhvi, AAG, Milind Kumar, Aruneshwar Gupta, E for the Respondent. The Judgement of the Court was delivered by LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated F 22.12.2000 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, Ben
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.