Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Suresh son of Ramaji Pandav, a Tax Collector with the Nagpur Municipal Corporation, was convicted by the trial court for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.500/- for the first offence, and rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.600/- for the second offence. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses, but the panch witness Ramesh Ambadas Linge was not examined. The complainant, PW 6 Somaji Mahaguji Meshram, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The entire reliance of the prosecution was on the oral testimony of PW 3, a panch witness. The court found that without corroboration from the complainant or any other independent evidence, the conviction was unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Hostile Complainant - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The appellant was convicted for demanding and accepting a bribe. The complainant turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The prosecution relied solely on the testimony of a panch witness (PW 3). The court held that in the absence of corroboration from the complainant or other independent evidence, the conviction cannot be sustained. The appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted. (Paras 1-5)
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 turned hostile and the prosecution relied solely on the testimony of a panch witness.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted.
Law Points
- Hostile witness
- Corroboration
- Demand and acceptance of bribe
- Standard of proof
- Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
