Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Rajendraprasad Pande (a Police Sub-Inspector) and Vijay Choube, were convicted by the Special Judge, Bhandara under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that appellant 1 demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 500 from the complainant Chakrapani to settle a complaint of sexual harassment made by a maidservant against the complainant's brother. Appellant 2 was convicted for abetment. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the sole trap witness (the complainant) was an interested witness, and the panch witness turned hostile. There was no independent corroboration of the demand or acceptance of bribe. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly set aside the conviction and acquitted both appellants.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption - Demand of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The prosecution case rested solely on the testimony of the complainant who was an interested witness and whose evidence was not corroborated by independent witnesses. The trap witness (panch) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. The court held that the conviction cannot be sustained as the demand and acceptance of bribe were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 2-5)
B) Evidence Law - Interested Witness - Corroboration - The court reiterated the principle that the evidence of an interested witness requires independent corroboration. In the absence of such corroboration, the conviction based solely on the testimony of the complainant is unsafe. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) and Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable in law when the sole trap witness is an interested witness and there is no independent corroboration of the demand and acceptance of bribe.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 12-10-2000 in Special Case 2/1992 is quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the offences charged. Their bail bonds stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Corroboration of trap witness
- Interested witness
- Demand of bribe
- Proof beyond reasonable doubt
- Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act
- Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act
- Section 12 Prevention of Corruption Act
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (08) 178
Criminal Appeal No. 299 of 2000
Shri S.A. Bramhe and Smt. Rashi Deshpande for appellants, Shri A.V. Palshikar, Addl.P.P. for respondent
Rajendraprasad s/o Shivcharan Pande and Vijay s/o Avadhabihari Choube
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to assail the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12-10-2000 in Special Case 2/1992 passed by the Special Judge, Bhandara
Filing Reason
Appellants were convicted for demanding and accepting bribe and abetment thereof
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted appellant 1 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and appellant 2 under Section 12 of the said Act
Issues
Whether the demand and acceptance of bribe by appellant 1 is proved beyond reasonable doubt?
Whether the conviction based solely on the testimony of an interested witness without corroboration is sustainable?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the prosecution case rests solely on the testimony of the complainant who is an interested witness and the panch witness turned hostile, thus the conviction is unsustainable.
Respondent argued that the trial court correctly appreciated the evidence and convicted the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi
The conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be sustained when the sole trap witness is an interested witness and there is no independent corroboration of the demand and acceptance of bribe. The prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Judgment Excerpts
The case of the prosecution which is unfolded during the course of trial is that the complainant Chakrapani is the owner of Niranjan Dantamanjan Factory at Tumsar.
The appellants seek to assail the judgment and order dated 12102000 in Special Case 2/1992, delivered by the learned Special Judge, Bhandara convicting appellant 1 under Sections 7 and 13(2)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and appellant 2 under Section 12 of the said Act.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted the appellants on 12-10-2000 in Special Case 2/1992. The appellants filed Criminal Appeal No. 299 of 2000 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was allowed on 22-08-2017.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 7, 12, 13(1)(d), 13(2)
