IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.919 OF 2003

STATE OF KARNATAKA ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

BASAVARAJ SHARANAIAH  KEMPAIAHMATH ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

The  trial  court  had  convicted  the  respondent  

herein  under  the  provisions  of  the  Prevention  of  

Corruption Act.  The judgment of the trial court was set  

aside by the High Court and the respondent acquitted by  

judgment  dated   15.07.2002.   The  State  has  come  in  

appeal before us after the grant of special leave.

We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties.

We find that there were three material witnesses  

in the present case.  P.W. 1 – the complainant, P.W. 2 –  

the  trap  witness  and  P.W.  5  –  the  shadow  witness.  

Concededly, P.W. 1 – the complainant did not support the  

prosecution story and disowned the statements attributed  

to him in his statement under Section 161 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure as also in the complaint.  P.W. 2 –  

the shadow witness  testified that he was not sitting in  

the verandah outside the room  where the money had been  

passed  on  and  was  not  in  a  position  to  hear  the  

conversation that took place inside the room.  P.W. 3 –  

the draftsman who had drawn the site plan was even more  

categoric that if P.W. 2 was sitting in the verandah  

which did not have a connecting door with the room where  

the respondent accused was sitting, it would not have  

been possible to hear the conversation that was going on  

in the room.  We are, therefore, left only with the  

statement of P.W. 5.  His statement also is ambivalent  

on material particulars and as he was a shadow witness  

he was standing a long distance away from the room where  

the bribe had been handed over.  He was, therefore, not  

in  a  position  to  see  as  to  what  had  transpired.  

Moreover, the High Court has on an appreciation of the  

evidence recorded a finding of acquittal.   We would be  

hesitant to interfere with this finding.

The appeal is dismissed in the aforesaid terms.

    ..................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    ..................J      [DEEPAK VERMA]

NEW DELHI      NOVEMBER 24, 2009.