Safiya Malik

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has dismissed an appeal against the acquittal of a respondent accused of bribery, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court reviewed the trial court's findings, the prosecution's evidence, and witness testimonies before concluding that the acquittal should not be overturned.

The case involved allegations against an Assistant Professor accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹5,000 in exchange for clearing a student's academic synopsis. The prosecution contended that there was sufficient oral, documentary, and scientific evidence to establish the charges. However, the trial court had acquitted the respondent, citing inconsistencies in witness testimonies and procedural gaps in the investigation. The High Court, while reviewing the appeal, examined whether the trial court's decision was perverse or legally unsustainable.

The prosecution argued that the trial court misinterpreted the evidence and overlooked key testimonies. It contended that the demand, acceptance, and subsequent recovery of the bribe were sufficiently proven. The primary witness, the complainant, alleged that she had approached the respondent after multiple rejections of her academic synopsis and was asked to pay ₹10,000, with ₹5,000 to be paid in advance. The prosecution presented testimonies from a trap team, shadow witnesses, and forensic experts to corroborate the charge.

The defense countered that the allegations were baseless, arguing that the respondent was not in a position to approve or reject the complainant’s synopsis, as that authority rested with a university panel. The defense also pointed out contradictions in the complainant’s statements regarding why her synopsis was previously rejected and the timeline of events leading to the alleged bribery.

The court examined applicable legal principles governing appeals against acquittals, referring to Supreme Court precedents. It stated, "If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." The judgment held that interference with an acquittal is warranted only if the decision is perverse, ignores material evidence, or is legally unsustainable.

Addressing the specific allegations, the High Court found that there was no documentary evidence proving that the respondent was assigned as the complainant's academic guide. The court noted, "The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the respondent was acting as a guide of the complainant in pursuing her M.Ed course." It further observed that the complainant’s testimony contained contradictions regarding whether she voluntarily changed her guide or was advised to do so.

The High Court also examined the procedural aspects of the investigation, particularly the role of the trap team. While the prosecution presented forensic evidence confirming the presence of phenolphthalein powder on the respondent’s hands, the court noted gaps in the chain of evidence. The court recorded, "There are contradictions between the statement of the complainant and the shadow witness regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe, creating doubts about the reliability of the prosecution’s case."

Additionally, the court observed that the investigation did not include key witnesses, including the complainant’s previous guide, whose testimony could have clarified whether bribery was indeed a factor in the synopsis approval process. The judgment noted, "No explanation is forthcoming from the prosecution for not associating the previous guide with the investigation."

Based on these findings, the High Court concluded that the trial court’s decision was legally sound and did not warrant interference. The judgment stated, "Only because another view is possible, the appellate court cannot overturn the acquittal unless it finds the trial court’s findings to be wholly implausible or perverse."

In light of these observations, the High Court dismissed the appeal, reaffirming the trial court's verdict of acquittal.

Case Title: Union Territory of J&K v. Ashu Jolly
Case Number: CrlA(AS) No. 2/2020
Bench: Justice Rajnesh Oswal

[Read/Download order]