Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Vikram s/o Jija Gite, a Talathi (village revenue officer), was convicted by the Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Aurangabad on 22.8.2000 in Special Case No. 2 of 1995 for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.200 for the first offence, and rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.500 for the second offence. The prosecution case was that on 18.1.1994, the complainant Limbaji Sonawane lodged a complaint alleging that the appellant demanded Rs.600 (later reduced to Rs.300) to make entries in the 7/12 extract regarding a well and to reduce the cart road width from 15 feet to 8 feet. A trap was laid on 19.1.1994, and the appellant was caught accepting the bribe money. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the complainant's testimony and the recovery of the bribe amount. However, the High Court found that the panch witness (PW2), who was an independent witness, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The complainant's testimony was not corroborated by any other independent witness. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act arises only when acceptance is proved, which was not the case here. Therefore, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) - Presumption under Section 20 - The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 arises only when the acceptance of the bribe is proved. In the present case, the trap witness (panch) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The complainant's testimony was not corroborated by any independent witness. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Act - Hostile Witness - Credibility - The court noted that the panch witness, who was an independent witness, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The court held that in the absence of corroboration from an independent witness, the testimony of the complainant alone is insufficient to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe. The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be invoked unless acceptance is proved. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable in law when the trap witness (panch) turned hostile and the complainant's testimony was not corroborated by independent evidence.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Aurangabad on 22.8.2000 in Special Case No. 2 of 1995 are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 arises only when acceptance of bribe is proved
- Standard of proof in corruption cases
- Credibility of trap witnesses
- Necessity of corroboration to independent witnesses
