Case Note & Summary
The case involves two appeals against conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.248/02 were policemen (accused nos.1 and 2) convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Act, and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.307/02 was a private citizen (accused no.3) convicted under Section 12 read with Section 7. The prosecution alleged that the policemen demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.1,000 from a complainant to release his brother who was in police custody, and that the private citizen acted as an intermediary. The trial court convicted all three based primarily on the testimony of the complainant, who was a trap witness. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found that the trap witness was an interested witness as he was the complainant and his testimony was not corroborated by any independent witness. The court noted that the panch witnesses did not support the prosecution case and that the recovery of tainted money alone was insufficient to prove demand and acceptance. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the convictions were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. The court also noted that the sentence of fine imposed on the deceased appellant did not abate, but since the appeal succeeded, the fine was set aside.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Trap Witness - Interested Witness - Conviction based solely on uncorroborated testimony of trap witness is unsafe - The court held that a trap witness is an interested witness and his testimony requires corroboration. In the absence of independent corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained. (Paras 10-15) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Proof - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to prove acceptance. (Paras 16-20) C) Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 12 - Abetment - For conviction under Section 12, the prosecution must prove that the accused abetted an offence under Section 7. In the absence of proof of the principal offence, the abettor cannot be convicted. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be sustained when the sole trap witness is an interested witness and his testimony is not corroborated.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. Convictions and sentences set aside. Appellants acquitted. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Trap witness is an interested witness
- conviction cannot be based solely on uncorroborated testimony of trap witness
- demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act require proof of demand and acceptance
- Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act requires abetment of offence under Section 7
