Case Note & Summary
The case involved an appeal by a Head Constable convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The prosecution alleged that the appellant demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 50 from a decoy witness, PW 2, to expedite a charge-sheet. The trap was laid by the Anti-Corruption Department, but the evidence presented was found to be inconsistent and unreliable. The trial court and the High Court upheld the conviction, but the Supreme Court, upon review, noted significant discrepancies in witness testimonies, particularly from the panch witnesses who turned hostile and supported the defence. The Court emphasized that the absence of powder treatment for the marked currency notes, a critical procedural step, undermined the prosecution's case. The Court concluded that the evidence did not support the conviction and acquitted the appellant, discharging him from bail. The judgment highlighted the importance of credible evidence and adherence to procedural norms in corruption cases.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption Offences - Conviction under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act - Evidence and Procedural Irregularities - The Supreme Court found that the prosecution's case was riddled with discrepancies and lacked credible evidence, particularly due to the absence of powder treatment of the currency notes, which is a standard procedure in such cases. The Court held that the prosecution story was not credible and the defence version appeared more probable, leading to the acquittal of the appellant. (Paras 1139-1145)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act was justified based on the evidence presented.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellant, and acquitted him, discharging him from his bail bond.
Law Points
- Appreciation of evidence
- Special leave to appeal
- Burden of proof
- Corruption offences
- Discrepancies in evidence
