Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Shridhar Ramkrushna Fale, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, for offences under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months respectively, with fines. The prosecution case was based on a complaint by Pradeep Tumsare (PW2), who alleged that the appellant, as Entertainment Duty Inspector, demanded and accepted bribes for renewing a video parlour licence. The appellant appealed to the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the sole trap witness (PW2) was an interested witness, being the complainant and having a motive to implicate the appellant. The court noted that there was no independent corroboration of his testimony, and the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the conviction was unsustainable and set aside the judgment of the trial court, acquitting the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Corruption - Trap Witness - Credibility - The sole trap witness, being the complainant and an interested party, requires corroboration for conviction - Held that the testimony of an interested trap witness without independent corroboration is insufficient to sustain a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Paras 5-10). B) Evidence Law - Interested Witness - Corroboration - In corruption cases, the evidence of a trap witness who is also the complainant must be scrutinized with care and corroborated by independent evidence - Held that the conviction based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an interested witness is unsafe (Paras 5-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable when the sole trap witness is an interested witness and his testimony is not corroborated.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted.
Law Points
- Trap witness credibility
- Interested witness
- Corroboration requirement
- Demand and acceptance of bribe
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
