Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sarfrazkhan Umdardaax Khan, was a police officer (ASI) convicted by the Special Judge, Amravati, in Special Case No.12 of 1989 for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case arose from a complaint by Suresh, who alleged that the appellant demanded Rs.100 to compromise a criminal case (Criminal Case No.176 of 1988 under Section 379 IPC) in which Suresh and his wife were accused. The complainant claimed that the appellant told him he could convince the other party to settle the matter and demanded the bribe. Suresh approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau, which laid a trap on 20th December 1988. During the trap, the complainant met the appellant near Daryapur S.T. Bus Stand in the presence of panch witness Narsing (PW2). The appellant allegedly repeated his demand and accepted the tainted money, which was seized from his pant pocket. The prosecution examined the complainant, the panch witness, and other officials. The panch witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. The trial court convicted the appellant, relying primarily on the complainant's testimony and the presumption under Section 20 of the Act. On appeal, the Bombay High Court examined the evidence and found the complainant's testimony to be unreliable. The complainant had a motive to implicate the appellant because he was an accused in a criminal case investigated by the appellant. His evidence was not corroborated by any independent witness. The panch witness, who was expected to be an independent corroborator, turned hostile and stated that the money was forcibly thrust into the appellant's pocket. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 was rebutted by the appellant's explanation that the money was thrust into his pocket without his consent. The court also noted that the complainant's conduct in not reporting the matter immediately and his interest in the outcome of the criminal case made his testimony untrustworthy. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The appellant, a police officer, was convicted for demanding and accepting Rs.100 from complainant Suresh to compromise a criminal case. The High Court held that the complainant's testimony was unreliable as he had a motive to implicate the accused and his evidence was not corroborated by independent witnesses. The panch witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act was rebutted by the accused's explanation that the money was forcibly thrust into his pocket. The conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Law - Hostile Witness - Value of Testimony - Section 154 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The panch witness PW2 Narsing was declared hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The court held that the testimony of a hostile witness cannot be used to convict the accused unless it is corroborated by other reliable evidence. In this case, the hostile witness's evidence did not prove the demand or acceptance of bribe. (Paras 6-8) C) Criminal Law - Presumption under Section 20 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Rebuttal - The presumption that a public servant who accepts gratification is presumed to have done so as a motive or reward can be rebutted by the accused. The accused's explanation that the money was thrust into his pocket without his consent was found plausible, especially given the complainant's interested testimony and lack of corroboration. The presumption was held to be rebutted. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable based on the evidence of an interested complainant and hostile panch witness.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 is rebuttable
- Complainant's testimony requires corroboration if interested
- Hostile witness testimony cannot be used to convict
- Demand and acceptance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
