Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to two police constables, Ghalappa Sardar Nadgeri (accused no.1) and Gurunath Keshav Rathod (accused no.2), who were convicted by the Special Judge, Solapur in Special Case No. 17 of 1994 for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accused no.1 was convicted under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) and Section 7, while accused no.2 was convicted under Section 12. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fines. The prosecution alleged that on 09/10/1993, the accused informed the complainant Shrimant Jorwar (PW4) that a complaint had been filed against him by the State Farming Corporation (SFC) regarding cultivation of land block no.23, and demanded a bribe of Rs.500 to settle the matter. A trap was arranged, and the bribe amount was allegedly recovered from accused no.1. The appellants challenged their conviction before the Bombay High Court. The court examined the evidence and found that the entire prosecution case rested on the testimony of PW4, who was an interested witness as he was the complainant and had a motive to implicate the accused. The court noted that there was no independent corroboration of his testimony, and the other witnesses, including the panch witness, did not support the prosecution case. The court held that the testimony of an interested witness requires corroboration, and in its absence, the conviction cannot be sustained. The court also observed that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7, 12, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - Conviction based on sole testimony of trap witness who is an interested witness - Held that the testimony of an interested witness requires corroboration; in absence of independent corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained - Appeal allowed, appellants acquitted (Paras 2-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 7, 12, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable based on the testimony of a sole interested witness without corroboration.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted. Bail bonds cancelled.
Law Points
- Conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof of demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt
- Testimony of interested witness requires corroboration
- Trap witness is an interested witness
- Benefit of doubt when prosecution case rests on sole interested witness
