Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed by Gangamma, a Supervisor in the Women and Child Welfare Department, challenging her conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court had sentenced her to one year simple imprisonment for Section 7 and three years for Section 13(1)(d) with fines. The complainant, Shanthamma, alleged that the accused demanded a bribe of Rs.500 to give her appointment as an Anganawadi Assistant. A trap was laid, and the accused was caught accepting the money. However, during trial, the complainant turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The panch witnesses also turned hostile. The High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the complainant's initial complaint was not corroborated by her testimony, and the trap witnesses did not support the prosecution. The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act could not be invoked without proof of demand and acceptance. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the accused was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of credible evidence of demand and acceptance, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act cannot be invoked. The court held that the trial court's conviction was unsustainable as the complainant's testimony was not corroborated and the trap witnesses turned hostile. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Law - Hostile Witness - Effect on Prosecution Case - Section 154 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - When material witnesses turn hostile and their testimony does not support the prosecution case, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. The court held that the evidence of the complainant and panch witnesses was unreliable, and the prosecution failed to prove its case. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable when the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of PC Act arises only after demand and acceptance are proved
- Burden of proof on prosecution to establish demand and acceptance
- Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases
