Moment of embarrassment for Lokayukta

Department brings same witness to two different cases; accused acquitted

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: The High Court has upheld the acquittal of a PDO of a Gram Panchayat accused in a corruption case in which the Trial Court found that the Lokayukta had presented the same witness in two different cases. Even the complainant did not support Lokayukta’s case.

The accused is Shrishail Hadapad. It was the case of the prosecution that one contractor, identified as PW.8, had undertaken the removal of silt, development of the village road, and construction of a school compound from the Kannolli Gram Panchayat under the MGNREGA Scheme in 2012. PW.8 had undertaken this work along with another person identified as PW.4.

The complainant in the case had supplied material to PW.4. The complainant allegedly approached Shrishail to get the bills for the above work released. Shrishail allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs 12,000.

The Lokayukta had presented one ‘shadow witness’ identified as PW.2, who saw the bribe being paid. But the complainant himself in the trial said that PW.2 was standing outside the room when the bribe was paid. But what the Trial Court noticed was that PW.2 was the same ‘shadow witness’ who was presented in another case by the Lokayukta.

Secondly, the complainant was not the contractor or the person to whom the payment had to be made. In an embarrassment for the Lokayukta, the complainant also did not support the case and told the court that he had not supplied any material to PW.4.

After the Trial Court acquitted Shrishail, the Lokayukta approached the High Court with an appeal. The HC said that the Lokayukta story was not believable. “Even according to the prosecution, the contract work was entrusted by the panchayat to PW.8 and it was PW.4 who did the work on behalf of PW.8.

From the material on record, the prosecution has failed to establish that the complainant has supplied any materials to PW.4 or that there was any amount due to PW.8 or to the complainant. Therefore, for issuance of the cheque to the complainant towards the materials supplied by him, the accused demanded and accepted illegal gratification, which cannot be believed,” it said.

The HC did not find fault with the order of the trial court. “The Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record and assigning reasons, acquitted the accused. After re-appreciating the evidence and material on record, this Court finds that there is no illegality committed by the Trial Court to reverse the judgment and order of acquittal,” it said.

Dismissing Lokayukta’s appeal, the HC said, “This being an appeal against acquittal, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is further strengthened and it is well-settled that substantial and compelling reasons are necessary to reverse an order of acquittal and if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the findings of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court.”