The highest courtroom discovered a number of inconsistencies within the prosecution’s case.
It famous that the scholar had given a unique account of the alleged demand in a separate case he had file. In that case, he had stated the Talati-cum-Mantri initially demanded ₹200, and that ₹120 was later agreed upon as a settlement. This model didn’t seem in his testimony earlier than the trial courtroom.
The Courtroom additionally famous that the Anti-Corruption Bureau had instructed the scholar handy over the complete ₹120 as soon as demanded, however he gave the peon solely ₹20 as an alternative, and the peon, standing near the Talati-cum-Mantri on the time, by no means questioned why.
“This once more raises a doubt as regards demand of ₹120/- by A1 (the Talati-cum-Mantri) within the backdrop of the complainant giving ₹20/- to A2 (the peon) regardless of being instructed to offer all the quantity of ₹120/- each time the demand was made,” the Courtroom noticed.
The Courtroom additionally famous that in his cross-examination earlier than the trial courtroom, the scholar admitted that the peon had by no means truly demanded any cash from him.
The ₹20 was handed over solely after the certificates had already been ready and given to him, the Courtroom famous. Taken collectively, the Courtroom discovered these information raised critical doubt in regards to the prosecution’s model.
