The Karnataka Excessive Court docket has rejected an enchantment by a head constable of the Bengaluru police towards a 2021 judgment which held him responsible in an alleged bribery case, saying that “good thing about doubt can’t be prolonged in favour of the accused solely on minor discrepancies”.
The order was handed on Might 2 by a single-judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh and was just lately made obtainable.
In 2017, the policeman, Manjanna, had allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs 20,000 to shut a case, after which the opposite celebration had agreed to pay Rs 10,000. A telephone dialog on the alleged deal was recorded. A criticism was lodged concerning the problem, and Manjanna was arrested after the bribe quantity of Rs 10,000 was allegedly recovered from him after a entice was laid. His arms additionally turned pink when subjected to a chemical wash, as a result of chemical phenolphthalein utilized to the bribe cash.
Subsequently, two sentences of three years and 4 years in jail have been imposed on him by a trial court docket, primarily based on totally different sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Arguing towards the conviction, Manjanna’s counsel said that the alleged telephone dialog had not been proved, and that he had been requested to take away the alleged bribe cash from a sealed cowl. It was argued that the related sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act wouldn’t be invoked over mere restoration of cash since no official work was pending with the accused with regard to the complainant.
Towards this, the prosecution counsel identified that the accused needn’t be ready to do the promised act for which the bribe was demanded, as per a judgment of the Supreme Court docket.
The court docket noticed that the report of the forensic science lab was not in favour of the accused, and minor points within the proof collected wouldn’t have an effect on the case as an entire. “Advantage of doubt can’t be prolonged in favour of the accused solely on minor discrepancies …. the foundational materials are discovered that there’s a demand and acceptance (of bribe)….the proof of the prosecution witness can also be clear that the pattern voice of the accused and likewise the voice which was discovered each are similar,” the court docket defined.
Story continues under this advert
Having made these observations, the excessive court docket rejected the enchantment.