16 years on, former station grasp acquitted in bribery case

Additional Sessions Judge Suryakant S Shinde, within the order on June 9, stated the prosecution “miserably failed to prove any of the charges” in opposition to Ramkaran Panchuram Meena, who was accused of demanding a bribe from a fruit vendor.

A duplicate of the order was made out there on Sunday.

According to the prosecution, Vendor Sonu Rashid Raeen had alleged that on June 13, 2009, Diva railway station grasp Meena demanded a bribe of ₹1,000 per thirty days and a further ₹5,000 for earlier months to permit him to promote fruits in trains and on the station premises in Thane district.

The Central Bureau of Investigation laid a lure the identical day and claimed to have caught Meena accepting an installment of ₹2,500.

Based on the seller’s criticism, Meena was charged beneath the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The prosecution’s case relied on testimonies of the complainant and a panch witness, and digital proof within the type of voice recordings.

The court docket, nevertheless, noticed the first proof was the oral testimony of the complainant, which was not supported by another credible proof.

It additionally famous that the panch witness by no means entered the station grasp’s cabin throughout the alleged demand or the lure, making his testimony unhelpful.

The digital proof, which might have corroborated the demand and acceptance of the bribe, was discovered to be unreliable.

“After hearing the conversation recorded in the memory card before the court, no conversation is appearing in respect of demand of bribe by the accused and acceptance there of. The conversation is not clearly audible,” the choose stated.

The court docket additionally highlighted that the transcripts famous “voice not clear”, “train sound” and “noise of train” at a number of factors.

Furthermore, the court docket took a dim view {that a} certificates beneath part 65-B of the Evidence Act, important for admitting digital proof, was not filed by the prosecution.

The choose additionally forged doubt on the complainant’s credibility.

“The complainant was having a grudge against the accused, therefore, implicating of accused in false case cannot be ruled out,” the court docket stated.

“To sum up the above discussion, from the above observations, it is clear that the oral testimony of the complainant in respect of demand of bribe by the accused and acceptance of it is not corroborated by any evidence brought on record by the prosecution,” it stated.

This article was generated from an automatic information company feed with out modifications to textual content.