Orissa HC Lets Forest Guard’s Acquittal Stand Despite Tainted Cash Recovery, As Bribe Demand Was Not Proved

The State sought leave to appeal under Sections 378(1) and 378(3) CrPC against the Special Judge’s judgment acquitting Kanhu Charan Samal of offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 34 IPC

The prosecution alleged that Samal accepted ₹1,000 as a bribe during a vigilance trap; the currency was recovered from him, and the hand-wash and pocket-wash tests were positive for phenolphthalein

At trial, the complainant did not support the prosecution’s allegation of bribery and said the payment related to a fine. The trial court found that demand of illegal gratification had not been proved and acquitted Samal

Under Sections 378(1) and 378(3) CrPC, the State’s challenge to an acquittal is subject to appellate review, but an acquittal attracts a reinforced presumption of innocence. Where two reasonable views of the evidence are possible, the appellate court should not substitute its view for that of the trial court; interference is warranted where the acquittal is perverse, clearly unreasonable, or rests on misreading or non-consideration of material evidence.

The Court relied on *Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa v. State of Karnataka*, 2026 INSC 67, and *Mallappa v. State of Karnataka*, 2024 INSC 104, for these principles

The State also relied on the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, contending that recovery and positive chemical tests established acceptance of gratification

The High Court held that the trial court’s assessment was a reasonably available view of the evidence. Although recovery of the tainted money and positive wash tests were proved, the complainant did not support the allegation of bribery, the accompanying witness had not heard the alleged demand, and the evidence of the other witnesses on demand was hearsay

The trial court had also considered the defence explanation that the money was paid toward a fine. In those circumstances, the State’s reliance on recovery and the chemical evidence did not establish that the acquittal was perverse or wholly unreasonable. Applying the restraint required in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court declined to substitute its view for that of the trial court

The application for leave was dismissed, leaving the acquittal undisturbed