Case Note & Summary
The appellant, a police constable, was convicted by the Special Judge, Kolhapur, for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 5,000 from Bipin Yeshwant Mane in connection with a criminal case (C.R. No. 139 of 1998). The prosecution alleged that the appellant had favoured Mane and other accused by not taking action under Section 151 CrPC and later demanded a bribe. The matter was reported to the Anti Corruption Bureau, and a trap was laid on 23.10.1998. The appellant was caught red-handed accepting the bribe. The trial court convicted him under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sentencing him to one year and two years of rigorous imprisonment respectively, with fines. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of the trap witness (PW-2) and the complainant (PW-1). The court noted that PW-2's evidence was unreliable and inconsistent, and there was no independent corroboration. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - Standard of Proof - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; presumption under Section 20 arises only after such proof. In this case, the sole trap witness (PW-2) was unreliable and his testimony was not corroborated by independent evidence. The court held that the conviction was not sustainable as the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offences. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Act - Interested Witness - Trap Witness - Credibility - A trap witness is considered an interested witness whose testimony requires corroboration. The court found that PW-2's evidence was inconsistent and lacked corroboration from other witnesses or circumstances, rendering it unsafe to base a conviction. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable based on the evidence of a trap witness and other circumstances.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentences set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 arises only after demand and acceptance are proved
- Standard of proof in criminal cases is beyond reasonable doubt
- Evidence of interested or partisan witnesses requires corroboration
- Trap witness is an interested witness
