Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Nathaji Tukaram Lohakare, a Talathi (village revenue officer), was convicted by the Special Judge, Solapur, for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and one year respectively, with fines. The case arose from a complaint by Bhanudas Kharche (PW4), who alleged that the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 500 to record an oral partition in the 7/12 extracts. A trap was laid, and the appellant was caught accepting the bribe money. The appellant appealed against the conviction. The High Court examined the evidence and found material inconsistencies between the complainant and the panch witness (PW5) regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe. The complainant stated that the appellant demanded the bribe in his office, while the panch witness claimed the demand was made at the complainant's house. Additionally, the panch witness's testimony about the acceptance of money was contradictory. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption under Section 20 of the Act could not be invoked. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The bail bonds were discharged.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) - Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; presumption under Section 20 arises only after such proof. In this case, the evidence of the complainant and panch witness was contradictory and unreliable, and the prosecution failed to establish the demand and acceptance. Held that the conviction was unsustainable and the appellant was entitled to acquittal. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Inconsistent Testimony - Benefit of Doubt - Where the testimony of prosecution witnesses is inconsistent and contradictory, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The court found material contradictions between the complainant and the panch witness regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount. Held that the appellant must be acquitted. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable in law given the inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted. Bail bonds discharged.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 arises only after demand and acceptance are proved
- Burden of proof on prosecution to establish demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt
- Inconsistent and contradictory evidence leads to benefit of doubt
