Appellant entitled for benefit of doubt if prosecution is unable to prove demand and acceptance of the bribe: Chhattisgarh HC
In a case of bribery, the burden to prove that the accused was involved in an offence purview under section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of corruption act, 1988 lies on the prosecution. Mere recovery of tainted money from the Appellant is not sufficient to prove the offence in question. “The prosecution has not been able to prove its case of demand and acceptance of bribe money against the Appellant. The Appellant is entitled to get benefit of doubt.” This was upheld by a single judge bench comprising of Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel in Rohit Kumar Sahu v. State of Madhya Pradesh [Criminal Appeal No.2618 of 1999]   The facts of the case are the appellant was posted as a Patwari of Patwari Halka No.104, Village Lawan. The complainant got an order passed in his favour for a correction in a mutation record. He met with the appellant where the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 250. The complainant registered a written complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Raipur based on which a Dehati Nalishi was registered. They further went on to trap the appellant. Sanction for prosecuting the appellant was given by the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, Bhopal. The appellant defended before the trial court that he neither demanded nor accepted a bribe. Furthermore, there was no witness who had been examined in support of his defense. The trial court convicted the appellant. An appeal was filed in High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur where the counsel for the appellant contended that the sanction for prosecution of the appellant obtained was invalid according to the provision of section 19 of the act relying on the judgements of Madhya Pradesh High Court in (1994) 2 MPJR 58 (Chandramani Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh) quoting, “the power to appoint a Patwari is conferred upon the Collector under Section 104(2) of the LR Code. It was also held that the Patwari so removed shall have right to appeal and revision under the provisions of the LR Code”. Thus, the trial court had errored in its judgement. Further, the issue whether there was a demand and acceptance of the bribe was analyzed by the learned judge placing heavy reliance on the case of (2014) 13 SCC 55 (B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh) where the Supreme court held that, “ Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe.” It also decreed that prosecution had not examined any other witness present during the time of acceptance of bribe and had also changed his statements from the initial complaint thus, there were no material evidence to be relied upon. In the present case as well, observed that the statements from the prosecution witnesses were contradictory. Furthermore, none of them had witnessed the demand/ acceptance of the alleged bribe by the appellant. Thus, the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur decreed “It is suspicious that the Appellant would have demanded and accepted bribe money in presence of those persons. Therefore, in my considered view, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case of demand and acceptance of bribe money against the Appellant. The Appellant is entitled to get benefit of doubt”. Click here to read the full judgement. 
AFRHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPURCriminal Appeal No.26199Judgment Reserved on : 22.2 . 2021 Judgment Delivered on : 9.6.2021Rohit Kumar Sahu son of Jhunauram Sahu aged about 52 years PatwariHalka No.104 Revenue Circle Lawan Village Badjar District Raipur M.P.(now Chhattisgarh) Appellantversus State of Madhya Pradesh through the Lokayukt Special PoliceEstablishment M.P. Bhopal M.P. Respondent For Appellant : Dr. N.K. Shukla Senior Advocate with Shri Arjit Tiwari AdvocateFor Respondent : Shri Priyanshu Gupta Panel Lawyer Hon ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh ChandelC.A.V. JUDGMENT1.This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 20.9.1999passed by the Special Judge Raipur in Special Case No.93 whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced underthe Prevention of Corruption Act 1988asunder: ConvictionSentenceUnder Section 7 of the ActRigorous Imprisonment for 1year and fine of Rs.1000 withdefault stipulationUnder Section 13(1)(d)read with Section 13(2) ofthe Act Rigorous Imprisonment for 1year and fine of Rs.1000 withdefault stipulationBoth the jail sentences aredirected to run concurrently 22.According to the case of prosecution at the relevant time theAppellant was working as a Patwari of Patwari Halka No.104 Village Lawan. In favour of Complainant BaburamtheTahsildar passed an order for correction in the relevant mutationrecord. On 28.10.1988 the Complainant met with the Appellantand talked for the correction. The Appellant demanded bribe ofRs.250 and asked him to bring the bribe money by 1.11.1988.Since the Complainant did not want to give the bribe on 1.11.1988 he made a written complaintto the Superintendent ofPolice Lokayukta Raipur. On the basis of Ex.P3 Dehati Nalishi(Ex.P11) was registered. Investigating Officer C.K. Tiwariand R.P. Sharma(PW4). The panch witnesses verified the contents of the complaint(Ex.P3) from the Complainant. The Complainant produced 2currency notes each in the denomination of Rs.100 and 1 currencynote in the denomination of Rs.50 for giving as bribe. Theirnumbers were noted and they were smeared with phenolphthaleinpowder. The panch witnesses and the Complainant were given ademonstration of trap proceedings. Thereafter a trap partyproceeded to Village Bagbooda. Ajay AwasthiandComplainant Baburamwent to the house of the Appellantsituated at Village Bagbooda. In his house the Appellant wassitting in the outside courtyard. A conversation took place betweenComplainant Baburamand the Appellant and thereafterBaburamgave the bribe money to the Appellant to which theAppellant kept in the pocket of his kurta. Complainant Baburam(PW6) came out of the courtyard and gave a signal to the trap party 3on which the trap party went to the spot and caught the Appellant.The bribe money was recovered from the pocket of the kurta of theAppellant. Hands of the Appellant were washed in a solution ofsodium carbonate on which colour of the solution turned into pink.The kurta of the Appellant and the recovered tainted money werealso dipped into different solutions of sodium carbonate on whichtheir colour turned into pink. On completion of other formalities thetrap party returned to the Lokayukta office. During investigation sanctionfor prosecution of the Appellant was obtainedfrom the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs Bhopal. Oncompletion of the investigation a charge sheet was filed. The TrialCourt framed charges.3.To bring home the offence the prosecution examined as many as11 witnesses. Statement of the Appellant was also recorded underSection 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he deniedthe guilt pleaded innocence and false implication. It was thedefence of the Appellant before the Trial Court that he neverdemanded any bribe nor did he accept the money as bribe.Virtually the demand of bribe was made by the Revenue Inspectorand to save the Revenue Inspector a false and fabricated case hasbeen prepared against him. At the time of trap the Complainanthad deliberately put the bribe money into the pocket of his kurtaand soon thereafter the trap party entered there and caught him. Itwas the further defence of the Appellant that the sanctionfor prosecution of theAppellant obtained from the Law and Legislative AffairsDepartment Bhopal is invalid and therefore the entire case of theprosecution vitiates. It was argued that according to the provisionsof Section 19 of the Act it is necessary that the sanction forprosecution must be given by the authority competent to removethe person appointed. A Patwari is appointed under Section 104 ofthe Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959by the Collector and therefore the Collector is thecompetent authority to remove a Patwari. In this regard reliancewas placed upon the judgments of Madhya Pradesh High Court in(1994) 2 MPJR 58(2010) 4 MPLJ 439and5 MPLJ 545for prosecution wasobtained from the Law and Legislative Affairs Department Bhopal who was not the appointing and removing authority of theAppellant Patwari the sanctionis not valid. According tothe Senior Advocate before the Trial Court also this objection wasraised but the Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment overlooked this fact and therefore there is a failure of justice. 5Thus the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court is notsustainable. It was further submitted that in this case the demandof bribe is also not proved. None of the panch witnesses hassupported the case of the prosecution regarding demand andacceptance of bribe by the Appellant. Mere recovery of taintedmoney from the Appellant is not sufficient to prove the offence inquestion. 6.Opposing the above arguments Learned Counsel appearing forthe Respondent State supported the impugned judgment. 7.I have heard the rival contentions urged on behalf of the partiesand perused the entire material available including the statementsof witnesses and the documents relied upon by the prosecutionwith due care. 8.It is not in dispute that at the relevant time the Appellant wasposted as a Patwari in Patwari Halka No.104 Village Lawan. It isalso not in dispute that the sanctionfor prosecution wasaccorded by the Additional Secretary Law and Legislative AffairsDepartment Bhopal. With regard to the sanction it would beappropriate to reproduce herein the provisions of Section 19 of thePrevention of Corruption Act 1988 which read thus: “19.Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.—(1)No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable underSections7 10 11 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed bya public servant except with the previous sanction save asotherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013 ——(a)no finding sentence or order passed by a SpecialJudge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of or any error omission or irregularity in the sanctionrequired under sub sectionunless in the opinion ofthat court a failure of justice has in fact been occasionedtherebywhether the absenceof or any error omission or irregularity in such sanction hasoccasioned or resulted in a failure of justice the court shall haveregard to the fact whether the objection could and should havebeen raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings.Explanation.—For the purpose of this section —(a)error includes competency of the authority to grantsanction The Collector shall from time to timearrange the villages of the tahsil in partwari circles and may atany time alter the limits of any existing circle and may createnew circles or abolish existing ones.(2)The Collector shall appoint one or more patwaris to eachpatwari circle for the maintenance and correction of land recordsand for such other duties as the State Government mayprescribe. it was held that the power toappoint a Patwari is conferred upon the Collector under Section104(2) of the LR Code. It was also held that the Patwari soremoved shall have right to appeal and revision under theprovisions of the LR Code. 11.Learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court inRavindra Kumar Gupta caseheld that the Sub DivisionalOfficer has the authority to exercise powers of the Collector underSection 104(2) of the LR Code regarding appointment of a Patwari.It was further held that apparently as the Sub Divisional Officer hasthe power to appoint a Patwari he subsequently also has the 8power to dismiss services of a Patwari. 12.In Ashok Kumar caseit was held by the Learned SingleJudge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court as under: “9.Admittedly the respondent No.1 is a Patwari. Theappointment of Patwari is being made u s 104(2) of the M.P.Land Revenue Code 1959 which reads as under:“104.Formation of Patwaris’ circles and appointment ofPatwaris thereto—(1)”Thus the appointing authority of Patwari is the Collector andnot the State Government. Though it has not been specificallymentioned that who can remove the services of the Patwari butby virtue of Section 16 of the M.P. General Clauses Act thepower to appoint includes the power to suspend or dismiss.Therefore the power vests in Collector to remove and terminatethe services of the Patwari.10.So as to attract the provision contained in sub sectionof Section 197 Cr.P.C three conditions are pre supposed. Firstly the person should be a public servant secondly he should not be removable from his office save by orwith the sanction of the Government and thirdly the offenceshould have been committed by him while acting or purportingto act in the discharge of his official duty. All these threeconditions should co exist. In the present case the respondentNo.1 who is a Patwari is neither appointed by the StateGovernment nor can be removed by it and thus the exemptionunder sub sectionof Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not attracted.”13.On perusal of the provisions of Section 104(2) of the LR Code andhaving regard to the above view taken by the Madhya PradeshHigh Court it is clear that with regard to appointment of a Patwari 9the Collector is the competent authority and therefore theCollector only is the competent authority for grant of sanction forprosecution against a Patwari. But in the instant case theprosecution has not obtained the sanction for prosecution of theAppellant Patwari from the concerned Collector. Rather theprosecution has obtained the sanctionfrom the AdditionalSecretary Law and Legislative Affairs Department Bhopal.Therefore the sanctionis not a valid sanction forprosecution of the Appellant Patwari. From perusal of theimpugned judgment it is also clear that this point was raised by thedefence also before the Trial Court but ignoring this point the TrialCourt discussing that how a sanction for prosecution can beproved has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has provedthe sanctionin accordance with law. Whether theAdditional Secretary Law and Legislative Affairs Department Bhopal was the competent authority to grant the sanction forprosecution of the Appellant Patwari or not no discussion has beenmade by the Trial Court in this regard nor has any finding beengiven by it in this regard. Therefore I am of the considered viewthat a failure of justice has occurred in this case. 14.While dealing with the issue of demand and acceptance of bribemoney in3 SCC 779the Supreme Court held thus: “18.In Suraj Mal v. State(1979) 4 SCC725 this Court took the view thatmererecovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstancesunder which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused 10when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. Themere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of theprosecution against the accused in the absence of any evidenceto prove payment of bribe or to show that the accusedvoluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe.”15.In13 SCC 55it washeld by the Supreme Court as under: “7.Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratificationis sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recoveryof currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accusedvoluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. Theabove position has been succinctly laid down in severaljudgments of this Court. By way of illustration reference may bemade to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. 15SCC 1 and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI 3 SCC 779.8.In the present case the complainant did not supportthe prosecution case insofar as demand by the accused isconcerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over tothe accused by the complainant to prove that the same waspursuant to any demand made by the accused. When thecomplainant himself had disowned what he had stated in theinitial complaintbefore LW 9 and there is no otherevidence to prove that the accused had made any demand theevidence of PW 1 and the contents of Ext. P 11 cannot be reliedupon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishesproof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. We are therefore inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well asthe High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged tobe made by the accused as proved. The only other materialavailable is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from thepossession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted bythe accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of thecurrency notes from the accused without proof of demand willnot bring home the offence under Section 7. The above also willbe conclusive insofar as the offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i)andis concerned as in the absence of any proof of demandfor illegal gratification the use of corrupt or illegal means or 11abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thingor pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established.9.Insofar as the presumption permissible to be drawnunder Section 20 of the Act is concerned such presumption canonly be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not theoffences under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) andof the Act. In anyevent it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratificationthat presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act thatsuch gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do anyofficial act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification canfollow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lackingin the present case the primary facts on the basis of which thelegal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are whollyabsent.”16.In10 SCC 152the Supreme Courtheld as follows: “22.In a recent enunciation by this Court to discern theimperative prerequisites of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act it hasbeen underlined in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. 13 SCC55 in unequivocal terms that mere possession and recovery ofcurrency notes from an accused without proof of demand wouldnot establish an offence under Section 7 as well as Sections13(1)(d)(i) andof the Act. It has been propounded that inthe absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification theuse of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a publicservant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantagecannot be held to be proved. The proof of demand thus hasbeen held to be an indispensable essentiality and of permeatingmandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. QuaSection 20 of the Act which permits a presumption asenvisaged therein it has been held that while it is extendableonly to an offence under Section 7 and not to those underSections 13(1)(d)(i) andof the Act it is contingent as wellon the proof of acceptance of illegal gratification for doing orforbearing to do any official act. Such proof of acceptance ofillegal gratification it was emphasised could follow only ifthere was proof of demand. Axiomatically it was held that inabsence of proof of demand such legal presumption underSection 20 of the Act would also not arise. 1223.The proof of demand of illegal gratification thus isthe gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)andof the Act and in absence thereof unmistakably thecharge therefor would fail. Mere acceptance of any amountallegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof dehors the proof of demand ipso facto would thus not besufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections ofthe Act. As a corollary failure of the prosecution to prove thedemand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mererecovery of the amount from the person accused of the offenceunder Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his convictionthereunder.” 17.Further in11 SCC 314itwas held by the Supreme Court as under: “13.With reference to the abovementioned rival legalcontentions urged on behalf of the parties and the evidence onrecord we have examined the concurrent finding of the fact onthe charge made against the appellant. It has been continuouslyheld by this Court in a catena of cases after interpretation of theprovisions of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act that the demandof illegal gratification by the accused is the sine qua non forconstituting an offence under the provisions of the Act. Thus the burden to prove the accusation against the appellant for theoffence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act withregard to the acceptance of illegal gratification from thecomplainant PW2 lies on the prosecution.”18.Reiterating the judgment of B. Jayaraj caseand P.Satyanarayana Murthy caseagain in3 SCC 108(Krishan Chander v. State of Delhi) it was held by the SupremeCourt thus: “35.It is well settled position of law that the demand forthe bribe money is sine qua non to convict the accused for theoffences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read withSection 13(2) of the PC Act. The same legal principle has beenheld by this Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. 13 SCC55 A. Subair v. State of Kerala 6 SCC 587 and P. 13Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P. 10 SCC 152upon which reliance is rightly placed by the learned SeniorCounsel on behalf of the appellant.” In paragraph 39 it was further held by the Supreme Court thus: “39.In view of the aforesaid reasons the approach ofboth the trial court and the High Court in the case is erroneousas both the courts have relied upon the evidence of theprosecution on the aspect of demand of illegal gratification fromthe complainant Jai Bhagwanby the appellant thoughthere is no substantive evidence in this regard and the appellantwas erroneously convicted for the charges framed against him.The prosecution has failed to prove the factum of demand ofbribe money made by the appellant from the complainant JaiBhagwanwhich is the sine qua non for convicting himfor the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) readwith Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Thus the impugned judgmentand orderof the High Court is not only erroneous butalso suffers from error in law and therefore liable to be setaside.”19.Recently in3 SCC 687reiterating the judgment of C.M. Girish Babu caseit was held by the Supreme Court asfollows: “26.It is equally well settled that mere recovery by itselfcannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused.Reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in C.M.Girish Babu v. CBI 3 SCC 779 and in B. Jayaraj v.State of A.P. 13 SCC 55. In the aforesaid judgments ofthis Court while considering the case under Sections 7 13(1)(d)(i) andof the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 it isreiterated that to prove the charge it has to be proved beyondreasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted moneyknowing it to be bribe. Absence of proof of demand for illegalgratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notesis not sufficient to constitute such offence. In the saidjudgments it is also held that even the presumption underSection 20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand for and 14acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. It is also fairly wellsettled that initial presumption of innocence in the criminaljurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the trialcourt.27.The relevant paras 7 8 and 9 of the judgment in B.Jayaraj v. State of A.P. 13 SCC 55 read as under:15 SCC 1 and C.M.Girish Babu v. CBI 3 SCC 779.8.In the present case the complainantdid not support the prosecution case insofar asdemand by the accused is concerned. Theprosecution has not examined any otherwitness present at the time when the moneywas allegedly handed over to the accused bythe complainant to prove that the same waspursuant to any demand made by the accused.When the complainant himself had disownedwhat he had stated in the initial complaint(Ext.P 11) before LW9 and there is no otherevidence to prove that the accused had madeany demand the evidence of PW1 and thecontents of Ext. P 11 cannot be relied upon tocome to the conclusion that the above materialfurnishes proof of the demand allegedly madeby the accused. We are therefore inclined tohold that the learned trial court as well as theHigh Court was not correct in holding thedemand alleged to be made by the accused asproved. The only other material available isthe recovery of the tainted currency notes from 15the possession of the accused. In fact suchpossession is admitted by the accused himself.Mere possession and recovery of the currencynotes from the accused without proof ofdemand will not bring home the offence underSection 7. The above also will be conclusiveinsofar as the offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) andis concerned as in the absence ofany proof of demand for illegal gratification the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse ofposition as a public servant to obtain anyvaluable thing or pecuniary advantage cannotbe held to be established.9.Insofar as the presumption permissibleto be drawn under Section 20 of the Act isconcerned such presumption can only be inrespect of the offence under Section 7 and notthe offences under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) andof the High Courtis fit to be set aside. Before recording conviction under theprovisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act the courts haveto take utmost care in scanning the evidence. Once conviction isrecorded under the provisions of the Prevention of CorruptionAct it casts a social stigma on the person in the society apartfrom serious consequences on the service rendered. At the same 16time it is also to be noted that whether the view taken by the trialcourt is a possible view or not there cannot be any definiteproposition and each case has to be judged on its own merits having regard to evidence on record.”20.In the light of above view taken by the Supreme Court now I shallexamine the facts and statements of the witnesses of the presentcase. With regard to the initial demand Complainant Baburam(PW6) deposed that for correction in the mutation record when hemet with the Appellant at that time the Revenue Inspector wasalso present there. At that time the Appellant Patwari asked him tocome after 2 4 days. When he again met with the Appellant hedemanded a sum of Rs.250. On this he made the writtencomplaintin the Lokayukta Office. In his cross examination this witness further deposed that the demand ofRs.250 made by the Appellant was for him was not known to him.He did not know the demand was for the Appellant himself or forthe Revenue Inspector. Nowhere in his deposition this witnessstated that for what purpose the demand was made by theAppellant. In his examination in chief this witness further deposedthat the written complaintsubmitted by him was not read byany of the panch witnesses. But both panch witnesses AjayAwasthiand R.P. Sharmadeposed that they hadread the complaintand verified its content fromComplainant Baburamalong with 17Complainant Baburamentered the house of the Appellantand there Complainant Baburamgave the bribe money tothe Appellant and at that time Ajay Awasthiwas presentthere. On this point Investigating Officer C.K. Tiwariandother panch witness R.P. Sharmastated that along withComplainant Baburampanch witness Ajay Awasthideposed that he alone had entered the house ofthe Appellant and Ajay Awasthihad stayed outside about100 metres away from him. Ajay Awasthialso supported theabove statement of Complainant Baburamand deposed thatComplainant Baburamalone had entered the house of theAppellant and he had stayed about 70 80 feet away from the houseof the Appellant. Ajay Awasthifurther deposed that neitherany conversation regarding transaction of bribe money took placein his presence nor did he witness the alleged transaction of bribemoney between the Complainant and the Appellant. Thus it isclear that on this point statements of all the above prosecutionwitnesses are totally contradictory. From the Court statements ofthe above witnesses it is clear that none of the panch witnesseshad entered the house of the Appellant nor did any of them witnessthe alleged transaction of bribe money between the Complainantand the Appellant or hear any conversation took place between theComplainant and the Appellant regarding bribe. 22.In paragraph 5 of his cross examination Complainant Baburam(PW6) admitted the fact that when he entered the courtyard of the 18house of the Appellant at that time Hansu Sahu ReshamSatnami Jethu Sahu and Khilawan Vishwakarma were also sittingthere along with the Appellant. Investigating Officer C.K. Tiwari(PW11) also admitted this fact. But none of the above 4 personssitting along with the Appellant in the courtyard of his house havebeen made a witness in this case nor has their statements beenrecorded. In paragraph 5 of his cross examination itself Complainant Baburamfurther deposed that he himself hadgone to the Appellant and told him that he had brought money. Atthat time the Appellant had not demanded money from thiswitness. This witness further deposed that he took the Appellant toa room and there he gave him the money. At that time also theAppellant had made any demand from this witness nothing hasbeen stated by this witness in this regard in his Court statement. 23.On a minute examination of the above evidence it is clear that withregard to the initial demand there are material contradictions in thestatements of Complainant Baburamand panch witnessesAjay Awasthiand R.P. Sharmaatthe time of trap also there are material contradictions in thestatements of Investigating Officer C.K. Tiwaripanchwitnesses R.P. Sharmaand Ajay AwasthiandComplainant Baburamhad entered the house of theAppellant. At that time inside the house the Appellant himself 19made the demand of bribe from the Complainant ComplainantBaburamhas not stated anything in this regard in his Courtstatement. From the statements of Complainant Baburamit is clear that at thetime of trap along with the Appellant 4 5 persons were also sittingalong with the Appellant but despite that the prosecution has notmade any of those persons a witness in this case nor has recordedtheir statements. It is suspicious that the Appellant would havedemanded and accepted bribe money in presence of thosepersons. Therefore in my considered view the prosecution hasnot been able to prove its case of demand and acceptance of bribemoney against the Appellant. The Appellant is entitled to getbenefit of doubt. 24.Consequently the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the TrialCourt is set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of the chargesframed against him. Sd JUDGE Gopal 