Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Rajaram Banderao Kulkarni, was a Revenue Circle Officer at Pangari, Taluka Barshi, District Solapur. On 24 May 1994, the complainant (PW-4) submitted an application for a mutation entry. The prosecution alleged that the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 500 for effecting the mutation. A trap was laid on 29 May 1994, and the complainant paid the bribe amount smeared with Anthracene powder at the appellant's residence. The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge, Solapur, under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1½ years and 9 months respectively, with fines. The appellant challenged the conviction in the High Court. The court examined the evidence, noting that the complainant (PW-4) was declared hostile and his testimony was unreliable. The panch witness (PW-3) was not an independent witness and his evidence did not inspire confidence. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the trap witness (PW-4) was declared hostile and his evidence was unreliable. The panch witness (PW-3) was not an independent witness and his testimony did not inspire confidence. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe, and the conviction was set aside (Paras 1-10). B) Evidence Act - Hostile Witness - Section 154 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - When a prosecution witness is declared hostile, his evidence cannot be relied upon to convict the accused unless corroborated by other independent evidence. The court held that the testimony of PW-4, who was declared hostile, could not be the basis for conviction (Paras 5-7). C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Trap Witness - Credibility - Sections 7, 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The evidence of a trap witness must be scrutinized with care and caution. In this case, the trap witness (PW-4) was not an independent witness and his evidence was contradictory. The court held that the conviction based on such evidence was unsustainable (Paras 5-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Evidence of trap witness must be corroborated
- Non-examination of independent panch witness is fatal
- Anthracene powder test alone insufficient to prove acceptance
