Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Namdeo Bakaramji Pagare, a teacher at a government school in Wardha, was convicted by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.550 from the complainant, Shrikant Shende, to pass his children in the annual examination. The complainant alleged that the appellant repeatedly sent messages through the children to meet him, and during a meeting, demanded Rs.1,200, later reduced to Rs.600, and finally Rs.550. The complainant paid Rs.50 on 12.04.1996 and agreed to pay the balance on 16.04.1996. A trap was laid on 16.04.1996, and the appellant was caught accepting the bribe money. The trial court convicted the appellant, sentencing him to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found material inconsistencies. The complainant (PW1) stated that the appellant demanded Rs.550 on 16.04.1996, but the shadow witness (PW2) testified that the appellant asked the complainant to pay the amount to the school office, not to him. The panch witness (PW3) turned hostile. 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 Act could not be invoked as the foundational facts were not established. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
Headnote
A) Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; presumption under Section 20 arises only after such proof. In this case, the complainant's testimony regarding demand was inconsistent with the shadow witness and other evidence, leading to acquittal. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence Act - Credibility of Witnesses - Inconsistent Testimony - Benefit of Doubt - Where the complainant and shadow witness give contradictory versions regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. The court found material contradictions between PW1 and PW2 regarding the alleged demand and the amount paid. (Paras 5-9) C) Criminal Law - Trap Case - Proof of Demand - Necessity of Corroboration - In trap cases, the evidence of the complainant must be corroborated by independent witnesses. Here, the shadow witness (PW2) did not support the complainant's version, and the panch witness turned hostile, weakening the prosecution case. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is sustainable in law given the inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence regarding demand and acceptance of bribe.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988 arises only after demand and acceptance are proved
- Burden of proof on prosecution to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt
- Inconsistent testimony of witnesses leads to benefit of doubt
