Case Note & Summary
The case involves two appeals by Prabhakar Balaji Bhoge (original accused No.1, an Assistant Police Sub-Inspector) and Murlidhar Namdeo Sarpe (original accused No.2, a tea stall servant) against their convictions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that on 20-1-1992, appellant Prabhakar picked up complainant Devidas Meshram and his two sisters in connection with a crime and demanded a bribe of Rs.500 for their release. The complainant paid Rs.200 on 21-1-1992, and a further demand of Rs.300 was made. On 22-1-1992, the complainant lodged a complaint, and a trap was arranged. During the trap, appellant Prabhakar allegedly demanded and accepted Rs.300 through appellant Murlidhar. The trial court convicted Prabhakar under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act, sentencing him to two years RI and fine, and convicted Murlidhar under Section 7 read with Section 12, sentencing him to two years RI and fine. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the sole trap witness (complainant) was an interested witness, and his testimony was not corroborated by independent witnesses. The panch witnesses turned hostile, and the trap proceedings were doubtful. The court held that the conviction cannot be based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an interested witness. The court also noted that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act arises only after demand and acceptance are proved, which was not the case here. Consequently, the court allowed both appeals, set aside the convictions, and acquitted the appellants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Conviction based on testimony of sole interested witness (complainant) without independent corroboration is unsustainable - Court held that where the trap witness is an interested witness, his testimony requires corroboration by independent witnesses or circumstances, and in absence thereof, conviction cannot be sustained (Paras 10-12). B) Evidence - Interested Witness - Corroboration - Trap Witness - Testimony of complainant in corruption cases is that of an interested witness and must be scrutinized with care - Court held that conviction cannot be based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant, especially when the trap proceedings are doubtful and independent witnesses turn hostile (Paras 10-12). C) Criminal Law - Presumption under Section 20 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Presumption of corruption arises only when demand and acceptance of bribe are proved - Court held that where the evidence of demand and acceptance is unreliable, the presumption under Section 20 cannot be invoked to sustain conviction (Para 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable when the sole trap witness is an interested witness and there is lack of independent corroboration of demand and acceptance of bribe.
Final Decision
Both appeals allowed. Convictions and sentences set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Corruption
- Trap Witness
- Corroboration
- Interested Witness
- Demand and Acceptance of Bribe
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
