It noted that the student had given a different account of the alleged demand in a separate case he had file.
In that case, he had said the Talati-cum-Mantri initially demanded ₹200, and that ₹120 was later agreed upon as a settlement.
The Court also noted that in his cross-examination before the trial court, the student admitted that the peon had never actually demanded any money from him.
The ₹20 was handed over only after the certificate had already been prepared and given to him, the Court noted.
Taken together, the Court found these facts raised serious doubt about the prosecution’s version.
The top court found several inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.
It noted that the student had given a different account of the alleged demand in a separate case he had file. In that case, he had said the Talati-cum-Mantri initially demanded ₹200, and that ₹120 was later agreed upon as a settlement. This version did not appear in his testimony before the trial court.
The Court also noted that the Anti-Corruption Bureau had instructed the student to hand over the full ₹120 once demanded, but he gave the peon only ₹20 instead, and the peon, standing close to the Talati-cum-Mantri at the time, never questioned why.
“This again raises a doubt as regards demand of ₹120/- by A1 (the Talati-cum-Mantri) in the backdrop of the complainant giving ₹20/- to A2 (the peon) despite being instructed to give the entire amount of ₹120/- whenever the demand was made,” the Court observed.
The Court also noted that in his cross-examination before the trial court, the student admitted that the peon had never actually demanded any money from him.
The ₹20 was handed over only after the certificate had already been prepared and given to him, the Court noted. Taken together, the Court found these facts raised serious doubt about the prosecution’s version.
