Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Madhav Bhalchandra Rajurkar, was convicted by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.300 from the complainant, Ravindra Patil, to include his name in a ration card. The prosecution case relied on the testimony of the complainant (PW1), who turned hostile, and a trap witness (PW2), Ashok Tupe, who was a stock witness. The High Court found that the trap witness was not independent and his testimony was unreliable. The court noted that the complainant did not support the prosecution, and the evidence of demand and acceptance was not credible. The court also observed that the investigating officer was not examined, and the panch witness was a stock witness. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction was set aside. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) - Proof - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, the trap witness (PW2) was not an independent panch but a stock witness, and his testimony was unreliable. The complainant (PW1) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The court held that the evidence of demand and acceptance was not credible, and the conviction was set aside. (Paras 1-30) B) Evidence Act - Trap Witness - Credibility - The court observed that a trap witness who is a stock witness and not independent cannot be relied upon without corroboration. The failure to examine the investigating officer and the panch witness (PW2) being a stock witness weakened the prosecution case. (Paras 15-25) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal Against Conviction - Acquittal - The High Court, in appeal, found that the trial court's judgment was perverse and based on no evidence. The appellant was entitled to acquittal as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 28-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is sustainable based on the evidence of a trap witness who was not independent and lacked corroboration.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Demand of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Trap witness must be independent and reliable
- Anthracene powder test alone insufficient
- Benefit of doubt to accused
