Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Krushna s/o Piraji Sawle, was a Police Head Constable attached to Chikhli police station. He was convicted by the Special Judge, Buldana in Special Anti Corruption Case No. 07/1995 for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to one year imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000 for each offence. The case arose from a trap laid on 16/8/1994, where the appellant allegedly demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 300 from the complainant, Samadhan Punjaji Kute, to not register an offence under Section 324 IPC against the complainant and his brothers. The complainant had earlier paid Rs. 1,000 as bribe. The appellant died during the pendency of the appeal, and his wife Meena was brought on record. The High Court examined the evidence and found material inconsistencies between the testimony of the complainant and the panch witness regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe. The court noted that the complainant's version was not corroborated by the panch witness on crucial aspects. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore the presumption under Section 20 of the Act could not be invoked. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d) - Presumption under Section 20 - The prosecution must first prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt before the presumption under Section 20 can be invoked. In this case, the evidence of the complainant and panch witness was inconsistent and unreliable, leading to failure to prove demand and acceptance. Held that conviction cannot be sustained (Paras 1-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable in law given the inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence regarding demand and acceptance of bribe.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence 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
- Burden of proof on prosecution to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt
- Inconsistencies in prosecution evidence lead to benefit of doubt
