Case Note & Summary
The case involves two appeals against conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant Gopal Gadhave (accused no.1) was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.500 from the complainant Pundalik Yadav for processing a Provident Fund loan application. The appellant Suryakant Gaikwad (accused no.2) was convicted under Section 12 for abetment. The prosecution case was that on 1st August 2000, the complainant applied for a PF loan. On 25th September 2000, he met accused no.1 who demanded Rs.500 as bribe. The complainant reported the matter to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, and a trap was laid on 27th September 2000. The trap succeeded, and the bribe amount was recovered from accused no.1. The trial court convicted both accused. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found that the sole trap witness (PW1) was a stock witness who had been used in multiple ACB cases. His testimony was not corroborated by independent evidence. The panch witness (PW2) turned hostile. The recovery of money was not disputed, but the demand was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the conviction was unsustainable and set aside the same. The appeals were allowed, and the appellants were acquitted.
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 absence of independent corroboration, conviction cannot be based solely on the testimony of a trap witness who is a stock witness and whose evidence is unreliable. (Paras 1-32) B) Prevention of Corruption Act - Abetment - Section 12 - Abetment of offence under Section 7 or 11 - Where the main accused is acquitted of the offence under Section 7, the charge of abetment under Section 12 against the co-accused cannot stand. (Paras 1-32) C) Evidence Law - Trap Witness - Stock Witness - Credibility - The testimony of a trap witness who is a stock witness and has been used in multiple cases requires careful scrutiny and corroboration. In the absence of such corroboration, the evidence is unreliable. (Paras 1-32)
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 is sustainable based on the evidence of a trap witness who was a stock witness and lacked corroboration.
Final Decision
Both appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Trap witness must be independent and reliable
- Evidence of stock witness requires corroboration
- Section 12 PC Act requires abetment of offence under Section 7 or 11
- Acquittal on main charge leads to acquittal on abetment charge
