1

2026:CGHC:3316

The date when

the judgment is

reserved

The date when the

judgment is

pronounced

The date when the

judgment is uploaded on

the website

Operative Full

31.10.2025 20.01.2026 -- 20.01.2026

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 694 of 2012

Jitendra Sahu, S/o R.P. Sahu, Aged About 50 Years Head Constable at

Present Post Police Station- Farashgaon Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon,

Chhattisgarh

… Appellant

versus

State of Chhattisgarh, through- Special Police Establishment, LoKayukta

Office Jagdalpur, District – Bastar, Chhattisgarh

--- State/Respondent

___________________________________________________________

For Appellant : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar and Mr. Leekesh

Kumar, Advocates.

For State : Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, PL

_____________________________________________________________

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

C A V Judgement

1.This appeal is preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 30.07.2012 passed by

learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Jagdalpur (C.G.)

in Special Criminal Case No. 01/2007 whereby the appellant has been

convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13 (1) read with

Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (for short, “the Act,

2

1988”) whereby the learned trial Court has sentenced the appellant in

the following manner with a direction to run both sentences

concurrently:

Conviction Sentence

U/S 7 Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988

RI for one year, pay a fine of Rs.

2,000/-, in default, to undergo

additional RI for 03 months.

U/S 13(1) read with Section

13(2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988

RI for 02 years, pay a fine of Rs.

3,000/- in default, to undergo

additional RI for 03 months.

2.The case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the impugned judgment

and the records of the case are that the complainant- Madhav Mandal

owns a shop in Farasgaon namely Kirti Automobile, where he operates

the business of buying and selling of Yamaha motorcycles. On

01.09.2005, complainant- Madhav Mandal appeared before a Anti-

Corruption Bureau Office, at Jagdalpur and submitted a written

complaint stating that Shivlal Markam, a resident of Farasgaon, had

purchased a Yamaha motorcycle from his shop six to seven months

earlier in installments. After the installments were paid, the vehicle

documents were returned to him, however, servicing fee of 250

₹

remained outstanding. On 04.08.2005, when his younger brother

namely Chandra Prakash Mandal demanded the servicing amount from

Shivlal Markam in his absence, a dispute arose between them, which

was reported by both parties to Police Station- Farasgaon.

Subsequently, on 31.08.2005, a compromise was reached between the

parties after a cordial discussion. However, even after that, Head

Constable Jitendra Sahu came to his shop and told him that a case

under the Atrocities Act had been filed against him based on Shivlal's

report and that the matter would be settled if he paid one thousand

3

rupees. To verify the veracity of complainant's complaint, a Crime No.

0/2005 was registered, and a small tape recorder with a blank cassette

was given to the complainant with the instruction to record his

conversation with the accused and return the cassette. Then, on

01.09.2005, he went to Farasgaon and taped the conversation with the

accused regarding the bribe and on 02.09.2005 came to the Anti-

Corruption Bureau Office, Jagdalpur and returned the cassette. A script

was prepared on the basis of the cassette, and the cassette was seized

and on the said date, Crime No. 0/2005 was registered for offence

under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the matter was

investigated. Panch witnesses namely R.R. Thakur, Block Education

Officer, Jagdalpur and Umesh Chandra Lal Srivastava, Sub-Divisional

Public Relations Officer, Jagdalpur, were summoned from the

Collector's office for the trap proceedings and were introduced to the

complainant- Madhav Mandal. After reading the complaint dated

02.09.2025 and questioning the complainant- Madhav Mandal,

regarding the complaint, the said witnesses made a note and signed

the complaint after being satisfied. The complainant produced 10

currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination which were tainted with

phenolphthalein powder by Constable Ramsewak Sinha and kept in

the left pocket of the shirt of the complainant with an instruction to give

it to the appellant on being demanded and thereafter give signal to the

trap party. All the necessary procedure were duly explained to the

complainant.

3.The trap party proceeded for the place of incident i.e., Kirti Automobile.

After reaching to the spot, all the members of the trap party sat hiding

nearby. At around 6.00 pm, accused Jitendra Sahu on Hero Honda

motor cycle number CG-03-1389 came to the shop of complainant-

4

Madhav Mandal and sat on a chair and started talking to him. A little

while later, at 6:30 pm, the complainant signaled the trap party by

making a gesture on being instructed beforehand by the trap party, who

arrived at the shop and introduced themselves to the accused, upon

which he stood up. Inspectors M.L. Negi and Ashok Dubey

apprehended him, but the accused freed one of his hands, took out the

money from the left pocket of his full pant and dropped it on the floor.

Then, Constable Dhanshyam Sahu prepared a solution of sodium

carbonate powder in a clean glass. The accused's fingers were dipped

in the solution and washed and its colour turned pink which was sealed.

The bribe amount was seized from the possession of the appellant and

on being tallied with the description of the notes mentioned in the

preliminary Panchnama, it were found to be same tainted notes. The

constable then prepared another aqueous solution of sodium carbonate

in which the left pocket of the full pant worn by the accused was dipped

and washed by panch witness Umesh Lal Srivastava, its colour too

turned pink and the same was sealed in a clean glass bottle and a slip

signed by the panch witnesses was affixed. After completing necessary

necessary formalities, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned

trial Court for the offences under Sections 7, 13 (1)(d) read with

Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the

appellant followed by framing of charges by the learned trial Court

accordingly, which were abjured by the appellant and he pleaded for

trial.

4.In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined as many

as 12 witnesses to prove its case against the accused person.

Statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C., in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances

5

appearing against him in the prosecution case and pleaded his

innocence and false implication in the case. However, two witnesses

examined by him in his defence.

5.The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the respective

parties and considered the material available on record thereby

convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in

inaugural para of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

6.Assailing correctness and validity of the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant

submits that the impugned judgment passed against the appellant is

per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. The

prosecution has failed to prove the necessary ingredients of the offence

beyond all reasonable doubt. Statements of the prosecution witnesses

are full of contradictions and omissions, but the learned trial Court did

not consider the same properly. The prosecution has failed to prove the

alleged demand of bribe and acceptance of bribe by the appellant.

Seizure of the currency notes from the appellant has also not been

proved. There are many contradictions and omissions in the statements

of the prosecution witnesses i.e., PW-1 R.R. Thakur, PW-2 Ramsewak

Sinha, PW-3 Shivlal Markam, PW-4 Jaideo Bhoi, PW-5 Ashok Kumar

Dubey, PW-6 Jagpati, PW-7 Ghanshyam and PW-12 M.L. Negi. There

is no independent witnesses examined by the prosecution about

delivery of illegal gratification of Rs. 1000/-, the solitary testimony of

PW-3, is not sufficient for the purpose of payment. It has been further

argued by learned counsel for the appellant that on the date of the

incident i.e., 21.08.2005, the complainant had offered the bribe which

was refused by the appellant, but the learned trial Court has held it

6

otherwise. He would also submit that there is no voice sample or test

report of the frequency of the voices of complainant and the appellant

so as to hold that there was conversation between the appellant and

complainant either in mobile phone or in tape recorder. Learned

counsel would further submit that the story of demand of bribe by the

appellant from the complainant is not proved, but even the story of

payment of the money by the complainant is not established beyond

reasonable doubt of that being so, the rule of presumption engrafted in

Section 4(1) of the PC Act, cannot be made use of for convicting the

appellant. The trap witnesses is an interested witnesses in the sense

that he is interested to see that the trap laid by him succeeded and it

could not be advisable to rely upon his evidence without corroboration.

Learned trial Court did not minutely appreciate the oral and

documentary evidence on record which make it clear that the

prosecution has utterly failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe

by the appellant. Hence, the impugned judgment is liable to be set

aside and the appellant be acquitted of all the charges leveled against

him. In support of their contention, they relied upon the judgment

passed by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of P. Somaraju vs.

State of Andhra Pradesh

1

, and in the matter of Rajendra Kumar

Yadav(died) and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh,

2

passed by this

Court.

7.Ex adverso, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the

impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court minutely

appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly convicted

the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not suffer from

12025 SCC OnLine SC 2291

2CRA No. 82 of 2003

7

any irregularity or infirmity warranting interference by this Court in the

instant appeal.

8.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record including the impugned judgment.

9.It is evident from record of learned Trial Court that it framed charges

against the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 7 & 13(1)

(d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary

evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant for the aforesaid

offences.

10.PW-3 Shivlal Markam has stated that in the year 2003-2004, he had

purchased a motorcycle from the showroom of the complainant-

Madhav Mandal and he did not receive any paper from the

complainant, in relation to the motorcycle, despite he paid the full

payment, therefore, he lodged a complaint against the complainant

Madhav Mandal at Police Station- Farasgaon vide Ex. P/11, wherein he

admitted his signature on A to A part. After lodging the complaint,

Madhav Mandal said he agreed to give the documents related to the

motorcycle and later he gave all documents to him. Since he got all the

documents, therefore, he did not want any further proceedings on the

report against the complainant made by him. Then, he contacted with

the accused Jitendra who was posted at Police Station- Farasgaon, he

brainwashed him by saying that you people have made mockery of the

justice by taking it into their own hands and further asserted him that

they both are criminals and they are liable to pay one thousand rupees,

only then the case will be settled. After passage of 8-10 days, he was

called at Madhav Mandal’s shop by the accused, as such, he reached

8

the spot and gave five hundred rupees to the accused Jitendra. Further

stated when the trap proceedings was going on against the accused,

he was sitting in the showroom.

In his cross-examination, he admitted that the accused Jitendra

had demanded one thousand rupees as a bribe, but he gave five

hundred rupees to him and he did not lodge any complaint before any

police station or forum. The witness further admitted that no complaint

was lodged with the Anti-Corruption Bureau regarding the alleged

demand of five hundred rupees and also admitted that he had given

five hundred rupees as a bribe to the accused before eight days of the

trap proceedings.

Some question was asked by the defence, which is reproduced

hereinbelow for ready reference as under:-

" प्रश्न- अपने अ

भियुक्त को पांच सौ रुपए रिश्वत की राशि कब दी थी

?

उत्त

र

-

जिसदिन ट्रैप हुआ उसके पहले ही मैं उसीदिन अभियुक्त को पांच सौ रुपए

रिश्वतदिया था

I ”

Some question was asked by the Court which is reproduced

hereinbelow for ready reference as under:-

"

न्यायालय द्वारा प्रश्न

:-

आपने अभी पहले बताया की ट्रैप होने के आठदिन पहले

अभियुक्त को पांच सौ रुपएरिश्वतदिया थाजबकिआप अभी यह बतारहे है की

,

जिसदिन ट्रैप की कार्यवाही हुईदिन ट्रैप के पहले मैंने अभियुक्त को पांच सौ रुपए

केराशिरिश्वत के रूप में दी थी उन दोनों में से कौन सी बात सही है

?

उत्त

र

-

मैं अभीजो यह बताया हुकी

,

ट्रैप केदिन ही ट्रैप के पहले अभियुक्त को

500

रुपएरिश्वतदिया हुवह बात सही बतलाया हु

I

पूर्वमें मैंने आठदिन पहले

अभियुक्त कोरिश्वत के रूप में पांच सौ रुपएदियाजाना इस आधारपरभुलवंश

बतादिया था की

,

ट्रैप के आठदिन पूर्वअभियुक्त से यह तय हुआ था की

,

मैं उसे

पांच सौ रुपएरिश्वत दूंगाजबकि

,

अभियुक्त एक हजाररुपए मांगरहा था

I”

In para 9 of his cross-examination, he admitted as under:-

9

"

यह कहना सही है की चंद्र प्रकाशमंडल औरमाधव मंडल केविरुद्धजब थाना में

रिपोर्टकिया तो उसरिपोर्टके बाद उन्होंने मुझे मेरे द्वारा खरीदी गयी गाड़ी का पेपर्सदे

दिया था

I

यह कहना सही है की

,

उसके बाद मैं औरचंद्र प्रकाशमंडल औरमाधव

मंडल ने आपस मेंराजीनामा करलिया है

I

यह कहना सही है की

,

लिखितराजीनामा

को हमलोगो ने थाना में लेजाकरपेशकरदिया था

I

यह कहना सही है की

,

अभियुक्त ने

मुझसे एवं माधव मंडल से इस बात केलिए पैसे मांगे थे कीराजीनामा के आधारपर

दोनों का मामला वे समाप्त करदेंगे

"

11.As per Ex. P/1, Madhav Mandal is a complainant, but before his

examination in the trial Court, he died.

12.PW-1 R.R. Thakur is a panch witness, stated that Inspector of Anti-

Corruption Bureau had introduced with another Inspector M.L. Negi,

thereafter M.L. Negi had introduced him to the complainant- Madhav

Mandal and other panch witness S.D.O. Ramesh Shrivastava through

telephone and they read out the written complaint (Ex. P/1) of the

complainant- Madhav Mandal, wherein he admitted his signature on A

to A part. He has stated about all the preliminary proceedings and

stated that they went with the complainant- Madhav Mandal and

Madhav Mandal went to his Jyoti Parts shop and sat. After one and half

an hour, the accused/Head Constable Jitendra Kumar Sahu came to

the shop of the complainant on his motorcycle. They were talking to

each other and they both were inside the shop. After half an hour, the

complainant came out from his shop and signaled the trap party by

making a gesture, then all the trap party reached to the shop of the

complainant. Inspector of Anti-Corruption Bureau, M.L. Negi introduced

himself to the accused/Jitendra Sahu. Inspector Negi grabbed the wrist

of the accused’s left hand and also Constable Ashok Dubey grabbed

the wrist, but the accused freed one his hands, took out the money from

10

the pocket of his full pant and dropped it on the floor. After that he

picked up the notes lying on the floor, there were 10 notes of Rs. 100

each.

In para 19 of his cross-examination, he admitted this fact that he was

aware about the dispute between Chandrakant Mandal, brother of

Madhav Mandal and Shivlal Markam and also he came to know that

Shivlal Markam did not have any direct dispute with Madhav Mandal.

Further, he was very well aware that cases under the Atrocities Act are

not registered in normal police stations. In para 22 of his cross-

examination, he admitted the suggestion of defence that he picked up

the bribe amount from the ground/floor and gave it. In para 23, he also

admitted this suggestion of defence when the accused caught by the

trap party, at that time, he raised an objection by saying that the

complainant Madhav Mandal himself called him through telephone to

come his shop.

13.Other members of police party i.e., PW-2 Constable- Ramsewak Sinha,

PW-5 Constable Ashok Kumar Dubey and PW-7 Constable

Ghanshyam Sahu and PW-12 D.S.P. M. L. Negi/Investigating Officer

have stated about the preliminary proceedings and trap proceedings

and admitted their signatures in all documents.

14.From close scrutiny of statements of all the witnesses, it clearly shows

in the present case that the complainant- Madhav Mandal was not

examined before learned trial Court as he died during the trial and

recovery was also not made from the accused Jitendra Sahu.

15.PW-1 R.R. Thakur and other witnesses have stated that bribe money

was recovered from the floor and as per witnesses, the accused took

money out of his pant and threw it on the floor.

11

16.PW-3 Shivlal Markam has admitted this fact in his statement that he did

not lodge any complaint against the accused for demanding of bribe

amount, despite he gave him Rs. 500/-.

17.Ex. P/1 is a written complaint by the complainant- Madhav Mandal and

was exhibited by panch witness.

18.In the present case, there is no tape recording of conversation between

the accused and the complainant regarding demand of bribe is

produced to substantiate the allegation of demand by the accused.

Thus, there is no proof of demand of bribe amount.

19.PW-1 R.R. Thakur has stated in his examination-in-chief and in his

cross-examination that he picked the bribe money from the floor and

seized.

20. As per seizure memo (Ex. P/3), seizure of 10 currency notes of 100

denomination was made from the accused Jitendra Sahu, but in

proceeding memo (Ex. P/4), it was mentioned that accused took out all

money from his pant and threw it on the floor.

21.PW-12 Investigating Officer- M.L.Negi has admitted this suggestion of

defence that Shivlal Markam did not mention giving the accused five

hundred rupees during the trap proceedings. Further admitted this fact

that when the pant of the accused was searched, no money was

recovered from it, only the bribe amount which had fallen on the floor

was recovered and no amount other than one thousand rupees was

recovered from the floor. He also admitted that Ex. D/3 is complaint of

one Virendra Kaushik, wherein he lodged the complaint against the

complainant- Madhav Mandal and Prakash Mandal with the allegation

that he had purchased one motorcycle from the Kirti Automobile and

paid the entire amount, despite that they did not provide him the

12

relevant documents in relation to the motorcycle.

He also admitted that he recorded the statement of the accused

Jitendra Sahu vide Ex. D/4, wherein he stated in para 39 as under:-

“…... मैने

शिकायत कर्ता गण को कार्यवाही कर पैसा वापस दिलाया था। इसी

बात की

रंजिश रखकर प्रार्थी व्दारा मुझे फसांने की कार्यवाही की गई। उसने यह

भ

ी बताया था कि आज दिनांक

02.09.05 को क

रीब

18:00 ब

जे मुझे आटो

मोबाईल्स में बुलाया औ

र अपने कुर्सी के पास बैठाया तथा एक हजार रूपये पैसे

देने की बात कहते ह

ुए मेरे फुलपेंट के बाये पॉकिट में जबरन भर दिया। इस तरह

सा

जिश कर रंजिश वंश पकडवाया है पैसा मैने नहीं लिया है।

"

22.It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of P.

Somaraju (supra) in paras 18 and 19, which read as under:-

“18.The statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act is

not automatic and arises only once the foundational facts of

demand and acceptance are proved. The same has been

reiterated time and again by this Court; in the recent decision of

Rajesh Gupta vs. State

3

through Central Bureau of Investigation,9

it was held:

“17. For an offence under Section 7 of PC Act, the

demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non to

prove the guilt. Mere recovery of currency notes

cannot constitute an offence under Section 7 of PC

Act, unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt

that accused voluntarily accepted the money,

knowing it to be a bribe. The proof of acceptance of

illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of

demand.”

19. It is therefore vital to examine these elements before the

circumstance of recovery can assume any significance. We

32022 INSC 359

13

once again rely on the observation of this Court in Rajesh

Gupta (supra):

“16. ….The law is well-settled by the judgments of

this Court in Panna Damodar Rathi vs. State of

Maharashtra (1979) 4 SCC 526 and Ayyasami vs.

State of Tamil Nadu (1992) 1 SCC 304, whereby it

has been clarified that the sole testimony of the

complainant, who is the interested witness, cannot

be relied upon without having corroboration with the

independent evidence.”

23.It has been held by this Court in the matter of Rajendra Kumar Yadav

(died) (supra) in paras, 17 18 and 19, which read as under:-

“ 17.In the matter of Raghubir Singh (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held in para 11 of its judgment as under:

“11. It is clear from the aforesaid discussion that the

evidence led on behalf of the prosecution is not such

as to inspire confidence in the mind of the court and

we must say that we are not at all satisfied that the

appellant either demanded bribe of Rs. 50/- from

Jagdish Raj or that Jagdish Raj paid bribe of Rs. 50/-

to the appellant by handing over five marked

currency notes to him or that five marked currency

notes of Rs. 10/- each were recovered from the

pocket of the appellant when his person was

searched by the raiding party. We may take this

opportunity

of pointing out that it would be desirable if in cases of

this kind where a trap is laid for a public servant, the

marked currency notes which are used for the

14

purpose of trap, are treated with phenolphthalein

powder so, that the handling of such marked

currency notes by the public servant can be detected

by chemical process and the court does not have to

depend on oral evidence which is sometimes of a

dubious character for the purpose of deciding the fate

of the public servant. It is but meet that science

oriented detection of crime is made a massive

programme of police, for in our technological age

nothing more primitive can be conceived of than

denying the discoveries of the sciences as aids to

crime suppression and nothing cruder can retard

forensic efficiency than swearing by traditional oral

evidence only, thereby discouraging liberal use of

scientific research to prove guilt. Vide Som Prakash

v. State of Delhi,(1974) 3 SCR 200 = (AIR 1974 SC

989 = 1974 Cri LJ 784)

18. This Court also observed in the matter of Shatrugan Lal Verma

(supra) in paras 27 & 28 of its judgment as under:

“27. Learned trial Court while relying the statements of

U.K.Sinha and Anil Kumar that Ram Bharose has not

demanded money from the complainant. Even if the

explanation of the accused is to be taken into

consideration and money was kept by Ram Bharose

but there is no evidence that Ram Bharose has

demanded money. In subsequent paragraph, he has

stated that even for the sake of argument, Ram

15

Bharose be treated accomplish still his evidence can

be taken into consideration. But the learned trial Court

has nowhere recorded its finding that accused has

demanded the money and in paragraph 43 of its

judgment has recorded the finding that money has

given by the U.K. Sinha to the accused in lieu of

change of telephone instrument. therefore, it is illegal

gratification.

28. Learned trial Court while convicting the accused

nowhere recorded its finding whether the accused has

demanded money and thereafter the money was given

to him. On the contrary, the appellant has categorically

stated that the complainant tried to give forcefully

money and he did not accept the same, therefore,

basic ingredient to prove the offence under Prevention

of Corruption Act has not been proved by the

prosecution by any cogent evidence. In his defence

the accused has stated that the complainant has

forcefully given money to him and he has not accepted

and thrown the notes under the table which was kept

by Ram Bharose in his pocket and has drawn

unnecessary assumption and presumption that peon

cannot dare to keep money in his pocket and has

disbelieved the defence taken by the accused under

Section 313 CrPC without any rhyme and reason

which is perverse finding.

Referring to the decision of Constitution Bench of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Neeraj

16

Dutta Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi reported in (2022)

SCC Online 1724, this Court observed in para 30 of

the judgment as under:

30. Considering the entire facts and

circumstance and the evidence of the

witnesses on record, this Court finds that the

prosecution had failed to prove its case

beyond reasonable doubt. There is suspicion

regarding the demand and acceptance of

bribe amount for which the accused appellant

was charge sheeted under Sections 7 and

13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act. The trial Court while convicting

the appellant has not considered the relevant

aspects of the matter thereby committed

illegality, Therefore, I am of the view that the

accused deserves to be acquitted from the

charges leveled against him.”

19. In light of the aforesaid decisions, if the facts and evidence

available in the present case are examined, it is seen that the

learned trial Court nowhere recorded its finding that the

prosecution has proved the fact of demand by the accused from

the complainant and thereafter accepted the bribe amount given

by the complainant. From the evidence of the complainant and

the panch witnesses it is clear that the complainant gave

Rs.526/- on the same date towards stamp fee and at the time of

trap, 7-8 currency notes of 100 denomination were recovered

from the pocket of the accused, out of which were four tainted

17

notes. PW-7 states that at the time of trap, only Rs.400/- was

kept in the pocket of the complainant whereas the investigating

officer states that apart from this amount, Rs.526/- was also kept

in the pocket of the complainant but he did not made entry to this

effect in the preliminary panchanama of Ex.P/2. Thus, looking to

the nature and quality of evidence adduced by the prosecution,

the whole trap proceedings appear to be suspicious and the

prosecution has failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe

by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Being so, the benefit

of doubt has to be credited to the appellant.”

24.In light of the aforesaid decisions, if the facts and evidence available in

the present case are examined, it is seen that the learned trial Court

nowhere recorded its finding that the prosecution has proved the fact of

demand by the accused from the complainant, it is also evident that the

complainant called the accused in his shop and money was not

recovered from the cloth of the complainant and it was recovered from

the floor and also in this case complainant was not examined before

learned trial Court as he died, so it is clear in the present case that

demand and recovery both are not proved beyond reasonable doubt,

but the learned trial Court did not appreciate all these facts minutely

and thereby has wrongly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid

offences.

25.Ex consequenti, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set

aside and the appellant is acquitted of the aforesaid charges.

26.The appellant is reported to be on bail. Keeping in view the provision of

Section 481 of BNSS, 2023., the appellant is directed to furnish the

personal bond a sum of Rs. 25,000/- before the Court concerned which

18

shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking

that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant

judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of

notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

27.The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back

immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary

action.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey)

JUDGE

AMIT PATEL