Case Note & Summary
The appellant, B. Bhogananjappa, a Revenue Inspector, was convicted by the Special Court and III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru in Special Case No.36/2007 for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The case was registered on the complaint of Nagendra Prasad (PW.3) alleging that the appellant demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.500 for issuing a revenue certificate. The Lokayukta police laid a trap, and the complainant allegedly paid the bribe. However, during trial, the complainant (PW.3) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. He denied that the appellant demanded any bribe or that he paid the amount. The trial court convicted the appellant relying on the evidence of other prosecution witnesses, including the trap witnesses and the investigating officer. The appellant appealed against the conviction. The High Court of Karnataka, in the appeal, examined the evidence and found that the sole trap witness (complainant) had turned hostile and his testimony did not incriminate the appellant. 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 PC Act could not be invoked as the foundational facts were not established. The court also noted that the other prosecution witnesses were not independent and their evidence was not sufficient to sustain the conviction. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Conviction based on sole trap witness who turned hostile - Held that when the complainant (trap witness) turns hostile and does not support the prosecution case, the conviction cannot be sustained as the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance are not proved beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 5-8). B) Evidence Law - Hostile Witness - Reliability - Section 154 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Prosecution cannot rely on a witness who has been declared hostile and whose testimony does not incriminate the accused - Held that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be used to convict the accused unless corroborated by other independent evidence (Para 6). C) Criminal Law - Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act - Rebuttable Presumption - Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Presumption of corruption arises only if demand and acceptance are proved - Held that where the complainant denies the demand and acceptance, the presumption under Section 20 is not attracted and the accused is entitled to acquittal (Para 7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable when the sole trap witness turned hostile and there was no independent corroboration of the demand and acceptance of bribe.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.02.2011 passed by the Special Court and III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mysore in Special Case No.36/2007 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act is rebuttable
- Conviction cannot be based solely on hostile witness
- Demand and acceptance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
- Trap witness must be independent and reliable
