Case Note & Summary
The present appeal was filed by original accused No.1, Rafiq Beg Mirza, challenging his conviction by the learned Special Judge, Jalgaon, in Special Case No.10 of 2004 for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant was a Police Head Constable attached to Pahur Police Station. The prosecution case was that the complainant, Dhanraj Pratap Jadhav, had a dispute with one Rangnath regarding payment for bullocks. The complainant approached the appellant for help, and the appellant allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs.5000 to settle the matter. The appellant was also alleged to have recovered Rs.1000 from the complainant on 14.02.2004. A trap was laid, and the appellant was caught accepting bribe money. The trial court convicted the appellant. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the complainant's testimony was unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration. The independent witnesses turned hostile, and the recovery of tainted money alone was insufficient to prove demand or acceptance. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and set aside the conviction.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) - Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt - The court examined whether the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant, a Police Head Constable. The complainant's testimony was found to be unreliable due to contradictions and lack of corroboration. The court held that mere recovery of tainted money does not prove demand or acceptance, and the presumption under Section 20 is rebuttable. The conviction was set aside (Paras 1-20). B) Evidence Law - Trap Case - Credibility of Complainant - Corroboration - The court considered the evidentiary value of the complainant's testimony in a trap case. The complainant was found to be an interested witness with a motive to implicate the appellant. The court held that in the absence of independent corroboration, the conviction cannot be sustained (Paras 10-18).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable when the complainant's testimony is unreliable and the demand and acceptance of bribe are not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction of appellant No.1 under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is set aside. Appellant No.1 is acquitted. Bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is rebuttable
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Complainant's testimony must be corroborated in trap cases
- Recovery of tainted money alone is insufficient to prove demand
