Pc act
mala
(Querist) 14 February 2015
This query is : Resolved
The case against accused A3 is that
1. he alongwith A1 C. A1 met Sh. R. Venkatraman and complainant on 05.02.2009 in the (R VENKATARAMAN ADVOCATE REGN NO D 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM MOB 9910090030) itself and there a demand of Rs.75,000/was raised for early listing of the matter.
2. The further case of the prosecution is that A1 C. A1, A3 A3, A2 KM Singh and Sh. R. Venkatraman visited the complainant on 06.02.2009 at Jantar Mantar and again raised a demand of Rs.75,000/ for showing favour to the complainant relating to the listing of the case.
3. Thereafter, as per the case of the prosecution, A3 comes into scene
4. The complainant believed what Sh. Venkatraman told him. Sh. Venkatraman is not before this court neither as an accused nor as a witness. Anything comes, without it becomes a hearsay evidence which is not admissible on the face of it.
5. Secondly, the alleged fact of visit of A3 A3 alongwith A1 C.A1, Sh. R. Venkatraman and A2 KM Singh on 06.02.2009 at Jantar Mantar has also not been mentioned by the complainant in his complaint Ex.PW2/A lodged on 09.02.2009. It is a matter of record that this version of the complainant came for the first time in his statement recorded on 03.03.2009. Thus, conspicuous absence of this plea in complaint Ex.PW2/A and existence of the same in the statement u/S.161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant, Ex.PW2/DA dated 03.03.2009, makes this plea unbelievable and unreliable.
6. Thus, I consider that as far as demand is concerned, there is no admissible evidence against accused A3 on record.
Accused A3 has also been charged for the offence u/S.7 & 13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) of POC Act r/w S.120B IPC.
The prosecution has proved on record that after accused KM Singh being apprehended, further trap was laid in pursuant to which Sh. Venkatraman called A3 A3 and a meeting was fixed outside at Pan kiosk.
The tape recorded conversation, tranript of which has been proved on record indicates that accused A3 was in full knowledge of the transaction of bribe. He also knew the purpose of making of payment by the complainant.
Accused A3 also talked to C. A1 on telephone. This telephonic conversation also indicates that there was meeting of mind between accused A3 and C. A1. In the
QUESTION NEED ANSWERS
1. When it is admitted that anything comes in the absence of R Venkataramn becomes hearsay evidence whereas with the same breathe the trial court finds that R Venkataramn had spoke to A3 on telephone also becomes hearsay evidence coupled with who can be sid to be the maker of this record and who are those witnesses who are competent to identify the voice as per law the person who identified the voice of the accused must be maker of the record or by others who are competent to identify the voice
2. A3 spoke to A1 on telephone hence convicted If it is so then why to ignore the fact that A3 was apprehended prior to this conversation and was under the custody of police hence anything spoken or acts performed are not voluntary
3. A2 got acquitted and R Venkataraman was discharged and the court has returned its findings that ince r venkataraman is discharged by my predecessaor and this court has no device to summon him which clarly shows that ignoring crpc 319
venkatesh Rao
(Expert) 15 February 2015
kindly rise these contentions before the appellate court.
P. Venu
(Expert) 15 February 2015
The information furnished is selective and hence insufficient to give any suggestion.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 15 February 2015
Consult local lawyer and show him the case file.
