State of Karnataka v. M S Yogamurthy

Karnataka HC22 Apr 2026CRL.A/654/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC CRL.A 654/2015 (M.G.S. Kamal J., 22.04.2026): Lokayuktha appeal against 06.02.2015 acquittal in SPL. CASE (PCA) 03/2010, Chitradurga, under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act 1988; village accountant trap case; demand/acceptance not proved owing to PW1-PW2 shadow-witness discrepancy and undated complaint; plausible Section 313 Cr.PC defence (Revenue Inspector's meeting 12.08.2009; khata file forwarded 23.06.2009) corroborated by certified minutes and not negated, per Parminder Kaur v. State of Punjab (2020) 8 SCC 811 (also referring Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam (2019) 13 SCC 289 and M. Abbas v. State of Kerala (2001) 10 SCC 103); reasonable doubt; appeal dismissed, acquittal upheld.

What did the court decide?

None; acquittal of the respondent-accused left undisturbed (no interference made out) ¶¶132

State of Karnataka Vs M S Yogamurthy — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; acquittal of the respondent-accused left undisturbed (no interference made out)

¶¶132

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? +1 more

¶¶71

Court's answer

Applying the principle of Parminder Kaur v. State of Punjab (2020) 8 SCC 811, the Court held the accused-respondent's plausible Section 313 defence was not negated by the prosecution, giving rise to serious doubt about the prosecution version; no grounds for interference with the acquittal exist and the appeal is dismissed.

¶¶131

Ratio / Principle

There is considerable force in the submission of learned counsel for the accused that PW1 and PW2 spoke different versions regarding demand and acceptance of the bribe amount (PW1: payment inside the office with PW2 watching; PW2: complainant called the accused outside and paid while the shadow witness was not present).

¶¶95

Key takeaways

The complaint (Ex.P1) does not indicate the date on which the first demand was made by the accused nor the date on which the complainant paid the initial bribe amount of Rs.1,000/-.ratio¶¶80
The accused-respondent set up a plausible defence and established it by documentary evidence; the case has not been displaced or disproved by the prosecution.ratio¶¶119
PW1 in cross-examination admitted that a meeting was convened by the Revenue Inspector on the trap date 12.08.2009 between 03.00 p.m. and 05.30 p.m., i.e., PW1 did not deny the meeting central to the accused's defence (though he said the meeting had concluded by the time he went to the office; PW2, PW5 and PW6 denied any such meeting).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) - trap case - acquittal upheld - State/Lokayuktha appeal under S. 378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C dismissed. Complaint (Ex.P1) was silent on the date of first demand and of the initial Rs.1,000/- payment. Complainant PW1 and shadow witness PW2 gave materially different versions of demand and acceptance (payment inside office with PW2 watching vs. payment outside office while PW2 absent). PW1 admitted in cross-examination that a Revenue Inspector's meeting was convened on the trap date (12.08.2009, 03.00-05.30 p.m.); accused's Section 313 statement asserted his duty was complete (khata records forwarded 23.06.2009) and was supported by a certified extract of the meeting minutes. Defence found plausible and established by documentary evidence, undisplaced by prosecution; per Parminder Kaur v. State of Punjab (2020) 8 SCC 811, once a plausible version is put forth at the Section 313 stage the prosecution must negate it. Reasonable doubt as to demand and acceptance; no grounds for interference; appeal dismissed, acquittal stands.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:22080 CRL.A No. 654 of 2015

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 654 OF 2015 (A)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. PRASAD B S.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

M S YOGAMURTHY S/O SHIVARUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT BHEEMASAMUDRA, IN-CHARGE VILLAGE, ACCOUNTANT OF SINGAPURA, NATIVE OF TUPPADAHALLI VILLAGE, HOLALAKERE TALUK - 577 526. CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. N D ONKARAPPA .,ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C BY THE S.P.P. AND ADV. FOR THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO a) GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 06.02.2015 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. AND S.J., CHITRADKURGA IN SPL. CASE (PCA) NO.03/2010 THEREBY ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 7, 13(1)(d) R/W 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:22080 CRL.A No. 654 of 2015

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

CORRUPTION ACT. b) SET-ASIDE THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7,13(1)(d) R/W 13(2) OF P.C. ACT, DATED 06.02.2015 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. AND S.J., CHITRADURGA IN SPL. CASE (PCA) NO.03./2010 BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.A. AND c) CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE ACCUSED-RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 7,13(1)(d) R/W 13(2) OF P.C. ACT WITH WHICH HE HAS BEEN CHARGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.

¶21

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is by the State Lokayuktha Police being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 06.02.2015 passed in Special Case (P.C.A) No.3/2010 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Chitradurga (hereinafter referred to as "trial Court"), by which, the trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondent herein of the offences punishable under Section 7, Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act for short).

¶25

A complaint dated 12.08.2009, came to be filed by one Tippeswamy before the appellant-Lokayukta Police, alleging that there was a partition of his family property in Sy.No.121/2A, pursuant to which, the complainant had

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:22080 CRL.A No. 654 of 2015

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

approached the accused-respondent, who was a Village Accountant in Singapura Village Panchayath to register the khata in the name of the complainant and his younger brother. Thereupon accused had demanded Rs.1,500 as bribe. Complainant had paid Rs.1,000 along with all the relevant documents. A month thereafter, when the complainant enquired with the accused regarding the work, the accused had demanded further sum of Rs.1,000. The complainant not willing to pay the bribe amount had filed the complaint before the appellant-Lokayuktha at about 02.00 p.m. on 12.08.2009.

¶30

Upon which, appellant police had registered a case in Crime No. 5/2009 under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act, 1988. A pre-trap mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P2. Complainant was handed over Phenolphthalein powder smeared two notes of Rs.500 each with instruction to pay on demand to the accused. A shadow witness was also sent along with a further instruction that upon payment of said amount should signal the police team which would be waiting nearby. Accordingly, at about 04.00 pm complainant along with the PW1 along with PW2 went to the office of the accused. Accused

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:22080 CRL.A No. 654 of 2015

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

demanded the bribe amount which was paid by the complainant

¶34

in the presence of the PW-2 shadow witness and thereafter complainant PW1 signalled the team which was waiting outside who swung into action, apprehended the accused, conducted the Phenolphthalein test on his hand and found the bribe amount in his pocket which he had handed over and the accused allegedly gave a confessional statement as per Ex.P6. Accordingly, the charge sheet is filed. Upon denial of the guilt, the accused sought for trial.

¶35

Prosecution has examined 6 witnesses as PW1 to PW6 and exhibited 28 documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P28(a). On behalf of the accused, one document-Form No. 21 marked as Ex.D1 and 14 material objects are marked as MOs. 1 to 14. Statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of Cr.PC. In which the accused denied he demanding and receiving the bribe amount. Further he has taken a specific stand that on 12.08.2009 at about 03.00 p.m. there was a meeting convened by the Revenue Inspector of Hireguntanur Village consisting of 8 Secretaries in which the accused had also participated. That there were about 30 to 40 members of public

¶36

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:22080 CRL.A No. 654 of 2015

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

present in the office. During which period Lokayuktha Police had barged into the meeting room and had forcibly taken the accused and the revenue inspector to the Chithradurga Lokayuktha Office and foisted a false case against the accused. That he has produced certified copy of the proceedings of the meeting which was in progress. That he had completed his part of the duty by forwarding the records pertaining to change of khata on 23.06.2009 to the Revenue Inspector and the no file was pending with him. Hence, sought for his acquittal.

¶39

Trial Court framed the following points for its

¶40

consideration;

¶41

"1. Does the prosecution prove that the accused being a public servant working as incharge village accountant of Singapura village, Chitradurga Taluk of demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1,500/- from the complainant in the month of July, 2009, to do the official work of change of khata to his name in respect of his share in the land bearing Sy.No.121/2A of Singapura village and received Rs.1,000/- as bribe from him and again on 12.8.2009 he demanded for illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- from the complainant and in pursuance of that demand, on the same day at about 3.45 p.m., he received a sum of Rs.1,000/- as bribe from him in the Office of the Revenue Inspector, Hireguntanur village, Chitradurga Taluk and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

¶42

2. Does the prosecution prove that the accused being a public servant working as incharge village accountant of Singapura village, Chitradurga Taluk demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1,500/- from the complainant in the month of July, 2009, to do the official work of change of

¶43

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:22080 CRL.A No. 654 of 2015

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

khata to his name in respect of his share in the land bearing Sy.No.121/2A of Singapura village and received Rs.1,000/- as bribe from him and again on 12.8.2009 he demanded for illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- from the complainant and in pursuance of that demand, on the same day at about 3.45 p.m., he received a sum of Rs.1,000/- as bribe from him in the Office of the Revenue Inspector, Hireguntanur village, Chitradurga Taluk, as a pecuniary advantage amounting to misconduct and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 13(1)(d) r/w/s 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?"

¶46

and on appreciation of evidence answered the points in the negative and consequently acquitted the accused for the alleged offences. Being aggrieved, appellant-Lokayuktha Police is before this Court.

¶47

Sri. Prasad B.S, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Lokayuktha taking this Court to the records submitted;

¶48

(a) that the only defence raised and taken into consideration by the trial Court was that no work was pending at the end of the accused-respondent as on the date of the trap.

¶49

(b) that the trial Court has accepted that this line of defence set up is contrary to the overwhelming material evidence. The documentary and material evidence brought on record by the

¶50

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:22080 CRL.A No. 654 of 2015

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

prosecution including pre-trap and the post-trap mahazar, which has been proved and established.

¶54

(c) that the complainant-PW1 and shadow witness- PW2, have withstood the test of cross-examination and nothing has been elicited. Element of demand and acceptance has been proved in the manner known to law.

¶55

(d) that mere non-pendency of work cannot be a ground inasmuch as though work is completed, completion of the work ought to have been intimated to the complainant which is absent. Therefore he submits trial Court was in error in acquitting the accused for the offences alleged and seeks for allowing of the appeal.

¶56

Per contra , Sri.N.D.Onkarappa, learned counsel appearing for the accused- respondent, justifying the judgment and order passed by the trial Court, submitted;

¶57

(a) that there are serious omissions and discrepancies in the evidence led in by the prosecution.

¶58

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:22080 CRL.A No. 654 of 2015

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

(b) that complainant-PW1 has not mentioned the date of demand in his complaint at Ex.P1, that he has also not spoken the actual date of demand in his chief-examination.

¶61

(c) that the said witness has deposed that he had paid the money in the presence of PW2- shadow witness, which runs contrary to the deposition of shadow witness.

¶62

(d) that PW2-shadow witness on the other hand has stated that the complainant had taken the accused out of the office and had paid the amount, at that time shadow witness was not present. Thus, he submit that this serious discrepancy in the deposition of PW1 and PW2 has resulted in prosecution not proving the requirement of demand and acceptance, since that is not established, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused.

¶63

(e) that the statement of the accused allegedly confessing to the crime cannot be relied upon by the prosecution as the same was recorded in the presence of the police which is inadmissible in law. That without proving the element of demand and

¶64

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:22080 CRL.A No. 654 of 2015

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

acceptance the prosecution cannot call upon the accused to

¶68

prove his innocence. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the appeal.

¶69

Heard. Perused the records.

¶70

Point that arise for consideration is;

¶71

"Whether the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?"

¶72

The complaint produced in Ex.P1 reads as under;

¶73

EªÀjUÉ, ¥ÉÆÃ°Ã¸ï ¸À¨ï E£Àì¥ÉPÀÖgï PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ avÀæzÀÄUÀð. EAzÀ, w¥ÉàÃ¸Áé«Ä ©.Dgï ©£ï gÀÄzÀæ¥Àà ¹AUÁ¥ÀÄgÀ avÀæzÀÄUÀð vÁ||. ¸Áé«Ä, "�ಷಯಃ ಲಂಚದ ಹಣ �ೇಡುವ ಬ�ೆ� ದೂರು �ೕಡುವ ಬ�ೆ�.

¶74

ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮ�� ೇ �ೊಳ"#ವ$%ೇ&ೆಂದ'ೆ , ನಮ� ತಂ%ೆಯವರು %ೈ*ಾ,ೕನ'ಾ-ದು., ನಮ� ಜ0ೕನು 1ಂ�ಾಪ$ರ �ಾ3ಮದ 4.ಸ.ನಂ. 121/2ಎ ಯ��ರುವ 5 (ಐದು) ಎಕ'ೆ ಜ0ೕನು ಇದು., ಈಗ ನಮ� :ಾ;ಯವ4ಂದ &ಾನು ಮತು< ನನ= ತಮ�ನ >ೆಸ4�ೆ ?ಾ:ೆ @ಾA1�ೊಡಲು ನಮ� 1ಂ�ಾಪ$ರ �ಾ3ಮದ �ಎ (�ಾ3ಮ BೆCDಗರು) ಆದ F3ೕಯುತ GೕಗಮೂHIಯವರನು= �ೇ �ೊಂJಾಗ ಅದ�ೆD ಅವರು ದುಡುL �ೊಡ�ೇ�ಾಗುತ<%ೆ ಎಂದು �ೇ ದರು. ಆಗ &ಾನು Mಾ�ೆ �ೊಡ�ೇ�ೆಂದು �ೇ %ೆ . ಅದ�ೆD �.ಎ.ಯವರು ಲಂಚ �ೊಡ%ೆ ಕNೇ4ಯ�� Mಾವ �ೆಲಸವO

¶75

10 -

¶76

NC: 2026:KHC:22080 CRL.A No. 654 of 2015

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

ನJೆಯುವ$Pಲ� ಎಂದು >ೇ ದರು. ಆಗ &ಾನು ಎಷುQ ಹಣ �ೊಡ�ೇ�ೆಂದು �ೇ ದ.�ೆD 1,500/- ರೂ.ಗಳನು= �ೇ ದರು. ಆಗ &ಾನು ನಮ� ಜ0ೕ�ನ ಎBಾ� �ಾಗದ ಪತ3ಗRೆSಂP�ೆ 1,000/- ರೂ.ಗಳನು= �ೊTೆQನು. ಇದನು= �ೊUQದು. ಸು@ಾರು ಒಂದು Hಂಗ ನ ನಂತರ ಬಂದು &ಾನು ನಮ� 1ಂ�ಾಪ$ರದ �.ಎ.ಯವರನು= ?ಾ:ೆ @ಾA1P.ೕ'ಾ ಎಂದು �ೇ ದ.�ೆD, ಇನು= ಇBಾ� �ೕವ$ ಪ$ನಃ ಒಂದು Wಾ�ರ (1,000/-) ರೂ.ಗಳನು= �ೊಟQ'ೆ @ಾತ3 ?ಾ:ೆ �ಮ� >ೆಸ4�ೆ @ಾA1�ೊಡು:ೆ<ೕ&ೆಂದು ಲಂಚದ ಹಣ�ೆD ಒ:ಾ<;1 �ೇ %ಾ.'ೆ . ಆದುದ4ಂದ ನನ�ೆ ®AZÀ �ೊಡಲು ಇಷQ�ಲ�ದ �ಾರಣ 1ಂ�ಾಪ$ರ �ಾ3ಮದ �.ಎ. AiÉÆÃUÀªÀÄÆwðAiÀÄªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ F ¢£À ¢£ÁAPÀ 12.08.2009 gÀAzÀÄ Bೋ�ಾಯುYತ Z�ೕ[ \ಾ]ೆ�ೆ ಬಂದು ^MಾIದು �ೕAದು., �ಾನೂನು ಕ3ಮ �ೈ�ೊಳ#�ೇ�ೆಂದು �ೇA�ೊಳ"#:ೆ<ೕ&ೆ .

¶79

�ೇ1�ೆ ಸಂಬಂ,1ದಂ:ೆ ಹಣವನು= :ಾವ$ >ಾಜರು ಪAಸಲು �ೇ %ಾಗ &ಾನು ತಮ�ೆ >ಾಜರುಪAಸು:ೆ<ೕ&ೆ ".

¶80

As pointed out by learned counsel for the accused, the aforesaid complaint does not indicate the date on which the first demand was made by the accused and the date on which the complainant paid initial bribe amount of Rs.1,000/-.

¶81

In the chief -examination, PW1 has deposed that he has paid Rs.1,000/- to the accused in the month of July, 2010. The PW1 has further deposed that he went along with the police persons and the other witnesses to the office of the accused at about 04.30 p.m. and reached thereby about 05.15 p.m. That after reaching the office of the accused, complainant enquired

¶82

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:22080 CRL.A No. 654 of 2015

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

with peon about the availability of the accused, to which he was informed that the accused was inside the office. Accordingly, PW1 met the accused and enquired about the change of khata. That the accused had asked if the complainant had brought the money as demanded. That the complainant answering the same in the affirmative gave two notes of Rs.500/- which the accused had received by his right hand and had kept in left hand side of the shirt pocket. At that time, PW2 who had gone along with the complainant was about 5 feet away from the complainant and was watching the process. Soon after payment of the amount, complainant came out of the Office signalled by wiping his face with the handkerchief as instructed by the Inspector. Thereupon, the Inspector and the other witnesses came inside the office, identified the accused, recovered the money from his pocket, conducted the test and recorded the mahazar. They also recovered and seized his shirt. Upon the test conducted, his hands on the shirt turned pink. PW1 had partly turned hostile and was subjected to the crossexamination by the prosecution.

¶85

12 -

¶86

NC: 2026:KHC:22080 CRL.A No. 654 of 2015

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

PW2 in its deposition has stated that they went to the office of accused at about 04.20 p.m.. Accused was sitting in the office of Revenue Inspector and he was identified by the complainant. Thereafter, complainant called the accused to come out of the office. Accordingly, accused came out of the office and complainant enquired him about the khata transfer issue. The accused had enquired about that whether the complainant had brought money, to which the accused had answered in the affirmative and handed over Rs.1,000/- to the accused, which was kept in his pocket. The complainant came out of the office and signalled as instructed and thereafter the procedure was followed by the prosecution.

¶89

Referring to the aforesaid deposition, counsel for the appellant pointed out that the element of demand and acceptance has been proved by the prosecution. That even if there are some discrepancy between the statement of PW1 and PW2, the same are insignificant and negligible, as they do not go to the root of the case.

¶90

Counsel for the accused-respondent on the other hand submits that there is a complete disparity in the deposition of

¶91

13 -

¶92

NC: 2026:KHC:22080 CRL.A No. 654 of 2015

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

PW1 and PW2. Whereas PW1 has stated accused-respondent being inside the office and the PW2-shadow witness being by his side when the amount was demanded and paid. Whereas PW2 has spoken about PW.1-complainant having called the accused outside the room and making the payment.

¶95

Thus, there is considerable force in the submission of learned counsel for the accused-Respondent that PW1 and PW2 have spoken different version regarding demand and acceptance of bribe amount.

¶96

Another aspect to be seen is a specific defence set up by the accused-respondent is with regard to a meeting being convened by the Revenue Inspector. On 12.08.2009 between 03.00 p.m. to 05.30 p.m. PW1 in the cross-examination has admitted such meeting being convened by the Revenue Inspector. However, he has answered that by the time he went to the Office the meeting was concluded. Thus, PW1 has not denied the meeting being convened in the Office of the Revenue Inspector. A lengthy cross-examination on this aspect has been conducted. Both PW2 and PW5 have denied there being any such meeting on the said date. PW6 has denied there

¶97

14 -

¶98

NC: 2026:KHC:22080 CRL.A No. 654 of 2015

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

being any such meeting on the said date. It is also suggested to the said witnesses that during the progress of the meeting the Lokayuktha Police had barged inside and had forcibly taken Revenue Inspector and the Village Accountant to their Office and had obtained the statements which is also denied.

¶101

Relevant to refer to statement of the accused-respondent

¶102

recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC by the trial Court which reads as under;

¶103

"¹.Dgï.¦.¹. ಕಲಂ 313 ರAಯ�� ಆ'ೋ^ಯ >ೇ �ೆ

¶104

&ಾನು, ^MಾIP%ಾ'ಾದ H_ೆ`ೕWಾa0 ಇವ4ಂದ, ಇವ4�ೆ Wೇ4ದ bತ3ದುಗI :ಾಲೂ�ಕು, 1ಂ�ಾಪ$ರ �ಾ3ಮದ 4.ಸ.ನಂ.121/2ಎ ರ ಜ0ೕ�ನ _ಾಲು�cಾಗದ ಪತ3ದಂ:ೆ ?ಾ:ೆ @ಾಡಲು Mಾವ$%ೇ 4ೕHಯ ಲಂಚದ ಹಣ�ೆD �ೇA�ೆ ಇUQರುವ$Pಲ� ಮತು< ಪJೆPರುವ$P®è.

¶105

¢£ÁAPÀ 12.08.02013 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzÁåºÀß 3.00 UÀAmÉ¬ÄAzÀ »gÉÃUÀÄAl£ÀÆgÀÄ PÀAzÁ ಕಂ%ಾಯ �4ೕdಕರ ಕNೇ4ಯ�� ಸದ4ಯವರ ಅಧfd:ೆಯ�� 8 d£À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼À ªÁgÀzÀ ¸À¨sÉ £ÀqÉ¹zÀÄÝ. CzÀgÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ PÀÆqÀ ¨sÁUÀªÀ»¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. ºÁUÀÆ 30-40 d£À ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è EzÀÝgÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj ಸcೆಯ ದೃhೕಕೃತ ಸcಾ ನಡವ �ೆ ಪ3Hಯನು= ಇದ'ೊಂP�ೆ ಲಗH<ಸBಾ-%ೆ . ಸದ4 ಸcೆ ನJೆಯುH<ರುವ ಸಮಯದ�� Bೋ�ಾಯುಕ< Z�ೕ[ ಸcೆ ನJೆಯುH<ದ. ಸiಳ�ೆD ಏ�ಾಏC ಬಂದು ಏನು �ಷಯ ಪ3Wಾ<^ಸ%ೆ ಈ ನನ=ನು= ಮತು< ಕಂ%ಾಯ �4ೕdಕರನು= ಬಲವಂತ*ಾ- bತ3ದುಗI Bೋ�ಾಯುಕ< ಕNೇ4�ೆ ಕ'ೆದು�ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು kೕಲDಂಡ �ೇಸನು= ಸೃlQ1�ೊಂಡು ನನ= �ರುದm ಸುಳ"# ದೂರು %ಾಖ�1 ಆ'ೋ^Mಾ- @ಾAರು:ಾ<'ೆ . ಈ ಅಂಶವ$ ಸತfPಂದ ಕೂAರುತ<%ೆ .

¶106

NC: 2026:KHC:22080 CRL.A No. 654 of 2015

¶107

15 -

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

&ಾನು P&ಾಂಕ 23-06-2009 ರಂದು ?ಾ:ೆ ಬದBಾವ]ೆ�ೆ ಸಂಬಂ,1ದಂ:ೆ ನನ=

¶110

_ಾ�ನ ಕತIವfವನು= �ವIp1ರು:ೆ<ೕ&ೆ ಮತು< ಸದ4 ಕಡತವನು= ಮುಂPನ DzÉÃ±ÀPÁÌV kೕBಾ,�ಾ4ಗRಾದ ಕಂ%ಾಯ �4ೕdಕ4�ೆ ಕಡತವನು= ಒ^`1ರು:ೆ<ೕ&ೆ .

¶111

kೕBೆ >ೇ ದ ಎBಾ� ಅಂಶಗಳ" ಸತfPಂದ ಕೂAದು., &ಾನು Mಾವ$%ೇ ಅಪ'ಾದ @ಾಡದ �ಾರಣPಂದ ನನ=ನು= ಈ ಪ3ಕರಣದ�� %ೋIlqಂದು Hೕ@ಾI�1 �ರಪ'ಾPqಂದು ಆ%ೇಶ �ೕಡ�ೇ�ಾ- ಸ�=, &ಾfMಾಲಯದ�� _ಾ3ಥI&ೆ .

¶112

19. Along with the 313 statement, the accused-respondent

¶113

has also produced certified extract of the minutes of the meeting which was convened and was in progress which reads

¶114

as under;

¶115

"¢£ÁAPÀ 12.08.2009 gÀAzÀÄ »gÉÃUÀÄAl£ÀÆgÀÄ ºÉÆÃ§½, gÁd¸Àé ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀ CzsÀåPÀëvÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀqÉzÀ ªÁgÀzÀ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉUÀ¼ÀÄ.

¶116

IÄvÀÄªÀiÁ£À ªÀgÀ¢ : ¸ÀzÀåPÉÌ ºÉÆÃ§½ J¯Áè UÁæªÀÄUÀ¼À°è ªÀÄ¼É ¨ÁgÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¥sÀ¸À®ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨ÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, E£ÀÄß MAzÀÄ ªÁgÀzÉÆ¼ÀUÉ ªÀÄ¼É ¨ÁgÀ¢zÀÝgÉ.

¶117

«ÄÃnAUï £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀÄªÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ zÁ½ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, ¸À¨sÉ CzsÀðPÉÌ ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ."

¶118

This case has not been displaced or disproved by the

¶119

prosecution. The accused-respondent has not only set up a plausible defence but has also established the same by producing a documentary evidence. PW1 in his deposition has admitted that when the alleged demand and acceptance of money was taking place, the same was being watched by the

¶120

16 - NC: 2026:KHC:22080 CRL.A No. 654 of 2015

¶121

HC-KAR

¶122

Revenue Inspector. But however, he had neither cared to inform the Revenue Inspector nor the Revenue Inspector had asked about the same. In contrast, PW2 has deposed that when the alleged conversation regarding demand and acceptance were taking place, there were none around the accused-respondent and the complainant.

¶123

The holistic reading of the aforesaid deposition in the light of the specific defence set up by the accused-respondent, supported by the documentary evidence, gives rise to reasonable doubt with regard to the very demand and acceptance that had taken place as alleged by the prosecution. The trial Court, taking note of these aspects of the matter, has declined to accept the case of the prosecution.

¶124

The Apex Court in the case of Parminder Kaur v. State

¶125

of Punjab reported in (2020) 8 SCC 811 dealing with the effect of failure to refute the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC at paragraph 22 has held as under;

¶126

"22. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the prosecution closes its evidence and examines all its witnesses, the accused is given an opportunity of explanation through Section 313(1)( b ). Any alternate version of events or interpretation proffered by the accused must be carefully analysed and considered by

¶127

17 - NC: 2026:KHC:22080 CRL.A No. 654 of 2015

¶128

HC-KAR

¶129

the trial court in compliance with the mandate of Section 313(4). Such opportunity is a valuable right of the accused to seek justice and defend oneself. Failure of the trial court to fairly apply its mind and consider the defence, could endanger the conviction itself [ Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam , (2019) 13 SCC 289, para 19 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 546] . Unlike the prosecution which needs to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the accused merely needs to create reasonable doubt or prove their alternate version by mere preponderance of probabilities [ M. Abbas v. State of Kerala , (2001) 10 SCC 103, para 10 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1270]. Thus, once a plausible version has been put forth in defence at the Section 313 Cr.PC examination stage, then it is for the prosecution to negate such defence plea."

¶130

This Court is of the considered view, the accused-

¶131

respondent has set up a plausible defence which has not been negated by the prosecution, giving rise to a serious doubt with regard to the version of the prosecution. No grounds are made

¶132

out for interference. Appeal is dismissed accordingly.

¶133

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶134

¶135

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

State of Karnataka v. M S Yogamurthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Karnataka v. M S Yogamurthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Karnataka Lokayukta Police Vs Mr H v Krishnaswamy

Manoj Kumar @ Pyachu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B Dharamanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Shashikumar. K. M. @ Shashi Vs the State of Karnataka by

Srinivas @Papa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Shekarappa H Vs the State by