29 November 2024 Corruption >> Criminal Law   |   Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law  

The primary evidence against the accused was the testimony of the complainant, who stated that he had paid the bribe to the accused. However, in cross-examination, the complainant contradicted his own statement, admitting that he had forcibly thrust the money into the accused's pocket, thus undermining his own allegations of a bribe being demanded and accepted. Furthermore, the prosecution's case involved several conflicting claims about when and how the bribe was demanded, with inconsistent statements from the complainant about the timing and nature of the alleged bribe.

 

 

The trial court noted these contradictions and concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It suggested that the complainant might have falsely implicated the accused due to frustration over the delay in receiving the electricity connection, particularly since the work was completed but not yet fully operational. The trial court, after careful consideration of the evidence, gave the benefit of the doubt to the accused and acquitted him of all charges. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988